Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Schools-Employers (Compacts)

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has had from groups of local employers and schools who wish to develop compacts; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): The Government are making available £3 million a year for each of the next four years to encourage the development of 12 employer-school compacts within inner city areas in England. It is also proposed to support a further two compacts in Scotland and one in Wales. The Manpower Services Commission has received a number of inquiries from interested employers and schools.

Mrs. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even more progress could be made on reducing unemployment on the one hand, and skill shortages on the other, if we were to develop compacts in my area? We are constantly faced with the conflicting problems of skill shortages and unemployment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that developing compacts as they are now envisaged would foster in our young people, before they leave school, a greater awareness, understanding and direct experience of industry, thereby, we hope, increasing the number of pupils who might consider taking up employment in industry after leaving school?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. The whole concept of compacts is that employers should guarantee a job with training to young people, particularly those from inner city schools, who meet agreed standards of achievement and motivation. Obviously, we should like to develop the idea in the west midlands, among other areas. I know, of course, of my hon. Friend's interest in Wolverhampton.

Mr. Sheerman: The Secretary of State will know that the Opposition are very much in favour of the compact idea. Indeed, ILEA pioneered the idea in central London with great success, and many people — including the Government — are now modelling their plans on that success.
There are dangers, however. Targeting is very important. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that targeting the youngsters who need the help provided by the compact—those less likely to obtain qualifications—is what the game is all about? Is he confident that employers will deliver on the compact, when they have signally failed to deliver on the general contribution to training over the past 10 years? The right hon. Gentleman knows —because he is carrying out a full investigation into training —that the voluntary principle has not worked.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman must be fair about, for example, the London compact. It is certainly true that ILEA has been very much involved with that, but so has the London enterprise agency, which involves companies in the private sector.
That, I think, is the reply to the hon. Gentleman's question : companies have become involved with the London compact. The aim — I agree with the hon. Gentleman — is to give a good education and an opportunity in employment, particularly in difficult areas such as the inner cities. We have 12 pilot schemes, and I hope that we shall learn from them.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: There can be little doubt of the benefit of industrial and commercial links with education, but does my right hon. Friend agree with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that the presence of city technology colleges in some of our cities will act as a stimulus and a catalyst for even more compact schemes throughout the country?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I believe that the closer together that we bring industry and schools, the better it will be for both sides.

Labour Statistics

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the most recent percentage unemployment figure in the EEC.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current net rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom and the EEC, respectively : and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: According to estimates compiled by the statistical office of the European Communities on a harmonised basis, the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom in January was 9·4 per cent. compared with 10·4 per cent. in the European Community as a whole. Over the past year our unemployment rate has fallen faster than in any other industrial country and is now lower than many of our European competitors, including France. Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Dr. Thomas: Is not the optimism of the Secretary of State and his colleagues short-term? Has he had an opportunity to study the report published last week by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which looks specifically at the longer-term position and warns against the decline in the British economy and other European economies —[Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like long-term analysis, but they have to face it. The report warns of the importance of pursuing expansionary fiscal policies to prevent European stagnation in the longer term.

Mr. Fowler: I do not think that any economic analyst would agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is the


slightest sign of decline in the British economy. Also, the Budget will considerably help employment. On the matter of trends, I have to point out that what has taken place in this country has not occurred over only two or three months. Unemployment has come down for 19 months in a row. One of the parts of the United Kingdom in which unemployment has come down most is Wales.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that apart from Britain's splendid example, where we are pursuing excellent Thatcherite policies, there is a serious problem in the continent of Europe and the rest of the Common Market, particularly by comparison with EFTA? Does that not suggest that we should be reviewing the excessive expenditure, high protectionism and excessive bureaucracy of the European Economic Community compared with EFTA and other parts of the world?

Mr. Fowler: The latest EFTA figures show that unemployment has gone up slightly over the past month. I do not want to make too much of that. —[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) rightly says, it is below the Common Market average. What pleases me is that unemployment is going down in this country at a faster rate than in any other industrialised country. We should take all the opportunities offered by 1992 and the open market, which I think fits in with at least part of what my hon. Friend is urging.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do not the Europeans, to some extent, show us the way? Does the Secretary of State know that four firms have nearly disappeared in my constituency over the past two months and have been saved only by the good work of Enterprise West Cumbria? In part, the reason has been the failure of the British clearing bank system. Why can we not have the same level of support from our banks in the regions as is available in other parts of the European Community?

Mr. Fowler: Unemployment is coming down in all regions of the country. Some of the biggest falls have been in regions such as the west midlands, the north and the north-west where the problem has been greatest. If the hon. Gentleman is considering disincentives to employment, I hope that he will point out to his Front Bench the disincentive of what happened at Dundee and how that has destroyed jobs for literally hundreds of people there.

Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in the United States is now about 5 per cent.? Does he draw any conclusions from that fact—such as that the European Community is overregulated and suffers from excessive bureaucracy and hardening of the economic arteries? Will my right hon. Friend persuade his colleagues in Europe to draw the obvious lessons from the United States?

Mr. Fowler: That figure shows some of the things that my hon. Friend has mentioned. Certainly we need to knock down the remaining barriers to trade. In addition, it shows how much further there is still to go and the opportunity that we have. There is no doubt that over the past two years our record inside the Common Market has been the best of all member countries.

Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country has one of the highest percentages of the population in work at 66 per cent.? Does he also agree that

a far higher percentage of people are in work in this country than in the European Economic Community, which has an average of 57 per cent.? Does he also agree that the record fall in unemployment rates in the past two years is due to the Government's economic policies and initiatives by the Department of Employment?

Mr. Fowler: All those facts are correct. I would only add that I do not believe that we should be remotely complacent about our position. We want unemployment to fall even further. I believe that unemployment will continue to fall under the Government's economic policies.

Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the fact that there has been a fall in the unemployment rate, has the Secretary of State consulted his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and perhaps even the Irish Government, about the possibility of introducing the fair employment legislation for Northern Ireland into Great Britain especially in view of the statements from the Commission for Racial Equality, which has said that there has been no appreciable improvement in the past 20 years in the prospects of the black community?

Mr. Fowler: I would not accept that analysis of the position. I believe that there has been a substantial improvement. Of course, I am continually in contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Meacher: Before the Secretary of State is dazed by his own complacency on this matter, will he acknowledge that on the counting basis used by all previous Governments, including Tory Governments, the number of unemployed today is still 3,329,000, nearly three times the level that the Government inherited? Is he aware that more than half the alleged cut in the past 18 months is due to the increased numbers of people on Government schemes plus the tighter availability-for-work rules? Is he also aware that the Government's recently published labour force survey shows that for every seven persons knocked off the unemployment registers, only one new job was created? Is it not clear that the Government's unemployment figures are scarcely worth the paper that they are written on?

Mr. Fowler: No, I do not accept a word of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Certainly the Government are not complacent. On the common basis of the European Community's statistical office, the figures show clearly that the unemployment rate in this country is below the European Common Market average. There is no question about that. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman's figures."] No, that is according to the EC's figures.
I am bound to say to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that, after Dundee, we will not take lectures from the Opposition on reducing unemployment. The unions which the hon. Member for Oldham, West so discreditably supported at the weekend have destroyed jobs, not created them. That is the responsibility of the hon. Member and his friends.

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were out of work in the Staffordshire, Moorlands parliamentary constituency at the most recent count; and what the figure was two years ago.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): On 11 February 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the Staffordshire, Moorlands parliamentary constituency was 2,700. The corresponding figure for February 1986 was 3,700.

Mr. Knox: Obviously there has been a significant reduction in unemployment in my constituency over the past two years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the unemployment rate in my constituency is still too high? When does he expect that the figure will be down to the 1973 level?

Mr. Lee: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend that the figures are too high. As he knows, we are not in the business of making specific forecasts, but we are slowly and steadily winning the unemployment battle. I place on record the contribution made by tourism to employment in my hon. Friend's constituency. Alton Towers will employ 1,400 people this year.

Training Schemes

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people in the London borough of Southwark are on Government training schemes; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): Some 530 young people are currently taking part in YTS schemes based in Southwark. They are benefiting from a structured training programme which will enhance their future job prospects.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that there is still a great skills mismatch between the training offered and the jobs available? Is he aware that in the docklands, where there is a great boom, most of the jobs—studies show that the figure is three quarters—go to labour recruited from outside the area rather than to people trained and recruited inside the area? Are he and his colleagues making progress, perhaps in the European Community where we were told discussions were taking place, to ensure that local youngsters can be trained locally and then employed locally, particularly in boom areas in Britain?

Mr. Cope: My answer referred to schemes based in Southwark, for which we have the figures. Obviously, some young people living in Southwark take part in schemes based elsewhere or in national schemes which have places in Southwark, and, for that matter, some young people in Southwark-based schemes no doubt come from outside the borough. The London labour market is not in sealed parcels, but we are doing our best to ensure that local people get local jobs.

Strikes

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strikes in November 1987; and what was the comparable figure for November 1978.

Mr. Fowler: In November 1978 almost 2 million working days were lost through strikes. In November 1987 the figure was 103,000—the lowest November figure for 29 years.

Mr. Martin: Is not the fact that the November 1987 figure was one of the lowest for many years a tribute to

the wisdom of the Government's industrial relations policies, which are recognised by some unions, though not by the Transport and General Workers Union, whose job-destroying attitudes apparently continue unabated?

Mr. Fowler: There is certainly no question but that the TGWU has found a new way of destroying jobs, which will be widely condemned throughout the country. I have no doubt that the Government's reform of industrial relations law has led to some of the improvements that we have seen in those figures.

Mr. Madden: How many days were lost in strike action in Dundee in the early part of this decade when, as a direct result of Government action, 3,000 Dundee jute workers were redundant—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to strikes in November 1987.

Mr. Madden: I am asking the Secretary of State how many strikes took place in 1979 and 1980 when 3,000 jute workers in Dundee were made redundant as a direct result of Government action. Does the Secretary of State believe that there will be more strikes, or fewer strikes, if employers blackmail Britain into selecting particular unions and force employees to join those unions?

Mr. Fowler: That is a particularly pathetic defence of the TGWU's position. The figure that I can give is that the TGWU has probably lost Dundee more than 1,000 jobs.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lesson of November is that the Government's legislation has worked and has shown clearly how effective it is? Surely another lesson that has come out of Dundee is that more legislation will probably be required to deal with such situations. Ford was prepared to come to Dundee, but required one-union agreement, and perhaps we should bring in legislation to make that possible in future.

Mr. Fowler: I hope, first and foremost, that the unions concerned come to their senses and take the sensible action that is necessary before we need to consider further legislation.

Mr. Meacher: If the Government are so concerned—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Meacher: If the Government are so concerned about the number of working days lost through strikes, why are they so indifferent to the far greater number of working days lost through industrial injury? Is the Minister not ashamed of the fact that the fatal and serious accident rate has increased since 1979 by 36 per cent. in manufacturing? Are not the Government directly responsible because they have cut the factory inspectorate by 20 per cent. and the annual number of prosecutions by 17 per cent.? —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not point across the Chamber. I am listening to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has nothing whatever to do with the original question, but clearly we are concerned about industrial injuries and all our policies will be pursued to seek to reduce them. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that


the number of working days lost in each of the past two years is the lowest for 10 years and the number of stoppages in each of the past three years is the lowest since 1940. That is the Government's achievement and it contrasts strongly with the industrial anarchy that the hon. Gentleman left behind him.

River Holidays

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is being done to promote river holidays in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lee: Inland waterway holidays are marketed by the industry itself as well as the tourist boards and the British Tourist Authority overseas. I recently met the chairman of the British Waterways Board, and the chairman of the English tourist board and British Tourist Authority for a useful exchange of views on how the tourism potential of inland waterways could best be achieved.

Mr. Brazier: That is welcome news indeed. Will my hon. Friend comment on what proportion of the British Waterways Board's income is derived from leisure? On the subject of water holidays, I commend to him that excellent book, "Three Men in a Boat" as an insight to the coming elections in the Labour party.

Mr. Lee: In regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question about "Three Men in a Boat", I am surprised that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has not put his oar into that particular boat. No doubt there is still time. In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the British Waterways Board receives about 43 per cent. of its earned income, excluding grant-aid, from leisure and tourism, amounting to about £2·75 million.

Mr. Corbett: As inland waterways include canals, what help is available to promote canals in and around the city of Birmingham, given that it has more canals than Venice?

Mr. Lee: Section 4 grants are available for the development of tourism projects associated with canals. Indeed, a number of section 4 grants recently have been given to similar projects; for example, the National Waterways museum in Gloucester and the Waveney river centre on the Norfolk Broads. Grants are available.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend persuade the board to restore horse-drawn canal boats, which were very scenic in my constituency on the Grand Union canal in past years and are an excellent holiday for families and friends?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to bring the horse, his favourite animal, into his questions. I am sure that the point that he made will be considered by the British Waterways Board.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister advise the House what discussions took place about mooring fees during his meeting with the chairman of the British Waterways Board? Is he aware that the increase in mooring fees has been so great that many people who use the rivers and canals are having second thoughts because they cannot afford the increase? Will the Minister prevail upon the chairman of the British Waterways Board to look at the situation and ensure that increases are not above the level of inflation?

Mr. Lee: I shall certainly draw the attention of the chairman of the British Waterways Board to the hon.

Gentleman's point about mooring fees. I understand that the level of charges essentially is for the commercial judgment and decision of the board.

"Training for Employment"

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implications for Derbyshire of the White Paper on "Training for Employment".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): In Derbyshire, as elsewhere, the employment training programme will provide a wide range of high-quality training opportunities for unemployed people, to meet their individual needs and those of the local labour market.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will the 3,132 people in Derbyshire currently involved in the community programme and their agents be involved in the new adult training scheme? What guarantee can my hon. Friend provide about the quality of those training programmes?

Mr. Nicholls: There will be a minimum of 170,000 community programme-type places in the new programme. My hon. Friend is entirely right to highlight the question of quality. The task of the Manpower Services Commission was to draw up a scheme which would provide quality training. It is satisfied that it has been able to do that and my right hon. Friend has accepted its recommendations in full.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that there is a lack of credibility in the White Paper's implications for South Yorkshire? There is a genuine fear among employers and trade unions that the programme cannot possibly provide the number of jobs and the required skills to assist an economy that badly needs revitalisation. The Minister will have to convince South Yorkshire that his claim—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Derbyshire.

Mr. Nicholls: In so far as Derbyshire and Amber Valley share similar problems, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a responsibility on all of us to try to allay genuine fears. If there are people in areas that are of concern to him who have these fears, I hope he will point out that the Manpower Services Commission's recommendations were unanimous and were accepted in full. I hope he will also point out that there are people on the Manpower Services Commission who represent not only local authority interests, but trade unions commissioners as well.

Regional Aid

Sir John Farr: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the advice of his Department is sought before a regional development grant is arranged for a company contemplating moving itself and its work force to another area.

Mr. Lee: The regional development grant scheme is essentially automatic. If a project meets the published criteria, the project will normally be approved and grant paid by the operating department without reference to the Department of Employment.

Sir John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he bear in mind that these very substantial grants can


lead to a considerable distortion of trade? Will he make sure that in future his Department is kept aware when grants of considerable size—say, up to £1 million—are made available to firms to move to a neighbouring town, because they can completely distort the local employment picture?

Mr. Lee: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I think he is referring to the regional development grant, which has been automatic. Applications for this grant cannot be made after Thursday of this week, but regional selective assistance will continue.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: The Minister has just said that the last date to apply for this grant is Thursday of this week. In the light of that will he, first, monitor the nature of automatic grants that are made available in Europe to ensure that firms coming here for the first time to extend their plants or to set up on the green field sites are not put at a disadvantage? Secondly, will he publish the criteria for regional selective assistance so that firms fully know what they are entitled to now that the regional development grant is to be phased out?

Mr. Lee: Both the hon. Gentleman's questions are matters for my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, not for me.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend will recall that a couple of years ago the Government quite arbitrarily changed the rules that enabled grants to be paid to employees moving from one area to another. As the Ministry of Defence has 600 vacancies for administrative and clerical assistants and is having to engage large numbers of agency staff, what liaison is there between my hon. Friend's Department and the Ministry of Defence to try to alleviate that shortage by helping people to move from parts of the country where there is high unemployment to the London area?

Mr. Lee: We are in contact with other Government Departments about such matters, and our employment service and the MSC keep a very close eye on opportunities for jobs and job creation.

Insolvency

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons have benefited from the insolvency provisions of the Employment Protection Act in the midland region during the current financial year.

Mr. Nicholls: The total for the first 11 months of this financial year was 11,876.

Mr. Rooker: Can the Minister explain how the former employees of Midland Professional Cleaning Services could benefit from these provisions, bearing in mind that the company ceased trading, having been paid by the supermarket for which it was cleaning? It is not in liquidation and it has never filed returns to Companies House. Even though these two dozen people are still cleaning the same supermarket, they have lost about six weeks' wages—taken by the company—which they do not stand a chance of getting back simply because the company is not in liquidation. How can they be covered and seek the protection and the benefit of these insolvency provisions?

Mr. Nicholls: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice that he was going to ask that

supplementary question. I know that he has been extremely active in contacting my Department to see whether anything can be done to help his constituents. The problem is that under this legislation, passed by the last Labour Government in 1976, my Department is in a position to help only where companies have become insolvent. I have made it my business to look at this question, and, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right.
This company is not insolvent, and therefore under the present state of the legislation nothing can be done. All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that, apart from the legal remedies which his constituents have, if, for some reason, the company ever were to go into a state of insolvency I hope that at that stage he will contact me again, because I have a great deal of sympathy with the plight of his constituents.

Rural Areas

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to encourage growth in employment in rural areas.

Mr. Cope: Our Department is playing its part with other interested Departments to help rural economies expand and diversify. Our key aim is to encourage enterprise by providing the necessary advice and support.

Mr. Taylor: I am sure the Minister will agree, and I am certain that the rest of the House will agree, that, to judge from the paucity of his reply, there is a distressing contrast between the Government's emphasis on urban deprivation and that relating to rural deprivation in areas such as my own. Nevertheless, given that the Minister has said that he is working with his colleagues, will he seek the extension of the assisted areas map, particularly to the United Downs area in Cornwall, given the job losses currently happening in the tin industry there?

Mr. Cope: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The figures indicate that unemployment in rural development areas is below the national average. I will certainly look into his last point.

Mr. Warren: Will my hon. Friend look at the situation in the East Sussex and Kent rural development area, where unemployment is higher than the national average, and where there is a strong feeling that window dressing is more important than new projects? Will he liaise with other Government Departments on this subject, which is causing considerable concern to my constituents?

Mr. Cope: Yes, I will certainly look into it if my lion. Friend will send me particulars of the matter that concerns him.

Steel Industry

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the trend in the numbers of employees in the steel industry.

Mr. Nicholls: According to the most recently published figures, the number of employees in employment in the iron and steel industries fell by an estimated 2,500 in the year to January 1988.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that, with privatisation on the agenda, there is now considerable


concern among steel workers because they have noticed that with the phoenix companies already created there has been a tendency to downgrade conditions of employment? Will he recognise that there will be considerable concern among steel workers throughout the industry if there is any attempt to dilute the contributory pension scheme, which has been established over a number of years?

Mr. Nicholls: I can appreciate the concern which the hon. Gentleman's constituents will feel when privatisation comes along, because although there are great opportunities, it represents a new departure, and clearly his constituents will want to be assured that there will be no dilution in the way that he suggests.
Perhaps I could make the point to the hon. Gentleman that there has been a transformation in the United Kingdom steel industry in recent years, and that is something that must bode well for his constituents. It is also worth emphasising that BSC gave an assurance as long ago as last December that, subject to market conditions, there would continue to be a commercial requirement for steel making and continuous casting capacity at the five integrated BSC plants for at least the next seven years. While I do not in any sense underplay the feelings of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, I hope that when they look at the industry in total they will be substantially reassured.

Mr. Sackville: Does my hon. Friend agree that many more jobs among steel-using industries stand to be lost by the operation of cartels among European steel producers and political interference than could possibly be saved in the steel industry by any such practices?

Mr. Nicholls: While that may not be directly a matter for me, I can understand the concern that my hon. Friend expresses in that question. Sometimes there is a feeling, certainly on this side of the House, that the high standards that we impose on ourselves are not always entirely matched by the performance of others.

Employment Trends

Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on employment trends for the remainder of 1988.

Mr. Cope: Following the long-established practice of previous Governments, we do not make forecasts of future employment levels. However, there is every prospect of a continuing rise in employment during 1988.

Mr. Leigh: With unemployment having fallen for 19 successive months, which now represents the greater threat to future job growth: the Neanderthal mentality of Dundee trade-union man, or the greedy mentality of Dagenham trade-union man?

Mr. Cope: It is difficult to place these factors in order of importance, but both are certainly important. The events in Dundee have without doubt damaged prospects. Wage increases are also well ahead of inflation, and this can damage competitiveness, and jobs and job creation as well. I hope that wage negotiators will have regard to that.

Mr. James Lamond: Looking back at the hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs that the Government have destroyed up and down the country, including in Dundee, it ill becomes them to criticise the trade union movement for refusing to accept the Government's

suggestion that it should go on bended knee to the United States, like a Third world country, asking the Americans to come here to pay slave labour wages and destroy the trade union movement. If the Minister expects that from the British trade union movement, he has a fight on his hands.

Mr. Cope: There is no point in our approaching Ford until the unions concerned have made their position clear.

Mr. Ashby: Has my hon. Friend considered that employment trends in 1988 and thereafter could improve considerably if great care were taken with future legislation to ensure that it does not inhibit manufacturing industry or the future of new manufacturing industries? What is done in the Department about representations to other Departments to see that their legislation does not inhibit industry?

Mr. Cope: The primary responsibility for this rests with the DTI and the deregulation unit, which examines all proposals. We do our bit, too, particularly for small businesses.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that, in spite of the recent fall in unemployment, the current number of unemployed claimants is between two and three times what it was when the Conservative party came to power? Does he recognise that, without a major Government initiative in this area, there is no hope of getting unemployment down by the next general election even to its level in 1979?

Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman should also recognise that employment has been up in every quarter for four and a half years.

Mr. Favell: Have not recent events shown that traditional trade unions are still interested in traditional working practices, rather than in creating the sort of climate that creates employment?

Mr. Cope: Yes, Sir.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry since June 1979; and if he will list the sectors of manufacturing industry which have incurred the highest number of job losses.

Mr. Nicholls: Between June 1979 and January 1988 the number of employees in employment in manufacturing industry in Great Britain is estimated to have fallen by 2,077,000. Over this period, the largest falls occurred in the mechanical engineering, motor vehicle, metal manufacturing, electrical engineering and metal goods industries. However, recent figures suggest that the trend in manufacturing employment may now be levelling out.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that that list of more than 2 million casualties, of which Ron Todd has not been responsible for a single one—[HON. MEMBERS : "Oh!"]—shows the hypocrisy of the Government when they talk about the loss of jobs in the last eight years? The Prime Minister has caused more devastation in manufacturing industry than Adolf Hitler caused between 1939 and 1945. It is no wonder that West Germany and Japan are laughing at Britain where they have a $120 billion surplus


on their trade and are walking away to the top of the industrial trade league, while we are losing jobs all around Great Britain.

Mr. Nicholls: The immoderate, ignorant and intemperate nature of that question shows that if we ever have a "wally of the week" award, the hon. Gentleman will be in a class of his own.

Mr. William Powell: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents do not well receive criticisms from Opposition Members about job losses when they recall that the last Labour Government closed the steelworks in Corby? However, my constituents welcome the enormous assistance that the Government have given them, which has enabled Corby to make such a striking recovery from that disaster.

Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. He might want to compliment the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on having had the courage to address the issue of Dundee, even if he has not managed to reach the inevitable conclusions about it.

YTS

Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of YTS leavers become unemployed; and how many have become long-term unemployed.

Mr. Cope: The Manpower Services Commission carries out regular follow-up surveys of all YTS leavers. These surveys show that, of those who left YTS schemes between April 1986 and September 1987, 22 per cent. were unemployed when surveyed. These surveys do not provide data on the duration of unemployment.

Mr. Steinberg: Is the Minister aware that in the northern region 31 per cent. are destined for the dole and those who do get work get jobs without proper training? Does the Minister agree that every youngster needs proper, quality training so that he can get a proper, quality job?

Mr. Cope: Yes. That is why we have the drive for equality in YTS and why we insist, for example, on approved training organisation status for all providers as from this week.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including the Prime Minister of Fiji and the Mayor of Shanghai. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Howarth: In view of the widespread concern about the poll tax in the country, and indeed on her own Back Benches, will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to withdrawing this deeply offensive legislation?

The Prime Minister: No. The community charge is a much fairer way of local people paying towards local

authority expenditure than the present rating system. The community charge in England will meet only one quarter of local authority expenditure. About half is met by the taxpayer and a quarter by industry. In Scotland the community charge meets only one seventh of local authority expenditure.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the decision yesterday by the Royal College of Nurses to reaffirm its no-strike policy, on the basis that strikes damage patients? Does she agree that that contrasts starkly with the behaviour of some teachers in London. When they go on strike it damages only their own pupils.

The Prime Minister: Yes, It was a most encouraging result. Of course, that was the reason why the Royal College of Nurses was given a pay review body. The Royal College has never gone on strike, and I am glad that our faith in it was abundantly rewarded by the view that it took.

Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister make clear her personal opposition, and that of the Government, to British rugby players organising a visit to South Africa?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we stand by the Gleneagles agreement, under which we attempt to discourage teams from going to South Africa. I understand that the English Rugby Union is trying to dissuade people from going to South Africa. I am not aware that either the Scots or the Welsh have declared their view.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend make it completely clear, in order to scotch rumour and media hype, that there is absolutely no difference of policy between herself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. Both the Chancellor and I put downward pressure on inflation as the topmost priority. Both the Chancellor and I think that exchange rate stability can be very useful for industry.

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Davies: In her endeavour to re-establish the bonds of family life, has the Prime Minister ever given any consideration to the value of a wife? Is she aware that the Forestry Commission is trying to double the rent of the tied cottages of its New Forest keepers and is offering in compensation £2 per week for each keeper's wife? Given that the Forestry Commission pays the same keepers 45p a week for a ferret and £2·30 a week for a dog, should she not intervene?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Budget set out considerably to help wives by the changes made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the taxation of wives. We on this side value them extremely highly.

Mr. Carrington: Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to read the scandalous letter sent by the Hammersmith branch of NALGO to Sinn Fein accusing the Government of state terrorism in Northern Ireland? Will she urge the national executive of NALGO to take disciplinary action against those members involved, and will she affirm—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be Government responsibility.

Mr. Carrington: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the actions of that NALGO branch?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be Government responsibility.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that Citizens Advice Bureaux case studies on the effects of her social security cuts show that a single pensioner home owner will lose £2 a week, a pensioner couple claiming income support can lose up to £18 a week, a pensioner on dialysis will lose £17 a week, and a doubly incontinent person claiming attendance allowance will lose £14 a week? Is that the way to treat sick and elderly people in the Britain of 1988?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of which press release by the Citizens Advice Bureaux the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. Is it one that has come out recently? There was a recent Citizens Advice Bureaux press release that was based on a belief that there was a difference between the time when supplementary benefit was changed to income support and the increase in pension benefit came into effect. In fact, that is not so.

Mr. Kinnock: Why will the Prime Minister not answer any specific question on the social security changes? Why is she dodging around talking about press releases when she knows very well that what I refer to are specific case studies of real people who, despite their huge needs, will lose £14, £17 and £18 a week as a consequence of next week's changes? Is she ashamed of those changes?

The Prime Minister: I assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about a Citizens Advice Bureaux press release which came out yesterday and which was based on a misunderstanding. Among other things, may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that the overwhelming majority of people will benefit, gain, from the improved social security benefits that will come out on 11 April? Some people on housing benefit will not gain because of the different arrangements about capital. It is absolutely futile for him to suggest that the Conservative party and the Government do not look after the needs of people on social security. It is absolutely futile, because not only are we already spending £44 billion on social security, but there is to be an increase of £2 billion next year. His questions are utterly futile and he cannot refute the facts.

Mr. Kinnock: That is all very well, but many sick and elderly people still stand to lose £14, £17 and £18 a week. Let me ask the Prime Minister the question again. Does she think that that is the way to treat anyone in this country?

The Prime Minister: The overwhelming majority of people will gain—and were designed to gain—from the increases in pensions, in disablement benefit and in sickness benefit. A few people will not gain. Apart from those on housing benefit, those who do not gain will be protected during the transition, in that their cash values will be protected. The overwhelming majority of us on this side of the House think it right that people who have capital of £6,000 should not be eligible for housing benefit, particularly as it is often paid by those who have none.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinnock.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister does not even understand her own policies. According to her Government's figures, 60 per cent. of claimants will lose because of the structural changes. There are no transitional arrangements for new payments. Will she now tell the people of Britain whether she thinks that people on dialysis, old-age pensioners and single home owners should be losing money at all? She can talk about gainers. Should anybody on those incomes be losing anything at all?

The Prime Minister: An extra £2 billion is to be spent on social security next year, giving a total of £46 billion. The right hon. Gentleman referred to dialysis. Far more people are now receiving dialysis than ever were in his time.
When the right hon. Gentleman said that 60 per cent. of people were losing, I think that he was referring to the Citizens Advice Bureaux press release this morning, which was seriously misleading, because it got the date of the benefits uprating wrong. Almost everyone in this country is doing far better than he or she was in 1979.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in north-west Hertfordshire district health authority there have been two health cuts: a cut of 47 per cent. in the waiting lists under this Government, and a cut of £100,000 available for patient care as a result of a 17 per cent. rate increase applied by the Socialist-controlled Hertfordshire county council?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the overwhelming majority of people who are treated under the National Health Service have very good cause to be grateful, and are very grateful. Cuts in the Health Service came under the Labour party when it was in power.

Mr. Archer: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Archer: When the right hon. Lady finds time to read the report by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, will she also read the report by the Policy Studies Institute, and by Oxford university, showing the impact of the Government's social security cuts on the sick, the disabled, the elderly and the unemployed? How will she then deal with the situation? Will she ask her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide funding for the sick, the disabled, the elderly and the unemployed, or will she instruct the appropriate Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security to arrange for them to take out second mortgages, or will she withdraw funding from the Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Policy Studies Institute and Oxford university?

The Prime Minister: Or will, perhaps, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party move a motion to cancel all the increases, or do they in their heart of hearts believe that they are far better with the overwhelming majority? The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that they are far better. Otherwise, I challenge him to move a motion to cancel the increases.

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation into trade union restrictive practices is most welcome? Furthermore, does she agree that those practices, whether at Dundee or elsewhere, disadvantage British industry, increase costs, damage the interests of the British consumer and are damaging to the country's interests overall?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All restrictive practices stifle competition and put up costs. We should do everything that we can to rid ourselves of them. That is why this matter has been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cook: Does the Prime Minister recall her carefully considered reply on 18 July 1985 to her hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), when she justified the 30 per cent. plus increase in top people's salaries by the need to provide rewards regarded by the public as fair but not generous in relation to the responsibilities carried? Bearing in mind last week's statement by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) that the reduction in the standard rate of tax is irreversible, will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether she intends to bear such adjustments in mind when she next reviews top salaries?

The Prime Minister: The report from the Top Salaries Review Body will come in with those of other review bodies, and we shall make our decisions on them, as we have done previously. I have not noticed that hon. Members have been anxious to take lower salaries.

Rover Group (Privatisation)

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I informed the House on 1 March that British Aerospace had declared a serious interest in acquiring the Government shareholding in Rover Group and that negotiations were being put in hand. British Aerospace asked that the negotiations should be on an exclusive basis. We agreed to this, provided that the further studies that it wished to carry out on Rover Group, and the negotiations between British Aerospace and the Government, were concluded by the end of April.
I promised to return and report the outcome of these discussions to the House at the earliest opportunity. I can do this today because British Aerospace has completed its investigations satisfactorily and earlier than anticipated. The negotiations have therefore been concluded and agreement reached. The rules of the stock exchange require in these circumstances that an announcement is made without delay. Today we have entered into a conditional contract with British Aerospace for the sale of the Government's shareholding in Rover Group.
Before entering into the contract with British Aerospace, we considered a number of confidential expressions of interest, but none amounted to a specific offer.
The board of Rover Group believes that this is the best possible outcome for the group. British Aerospace is strongly committed to the further development and growth of Rover Group, working with the existing Rover Group management who have made so much progress in improving the performance of the businesses. Honda told us that it welcomed the continuity of Rover Group's management team which would be assured by British Aerospace's ownership of the company. I therefore hope that the important operational partnership between Rover Group and Honda can continue to develop satisfactorily.
Without constraining British Aerospace's day-to-day management of the business, we have agreed important conditions on the agreement. British Aerospace has undertaken not to relinquish control of Austin Rover and Land Rover within five years. This undertaking is supported by legal arrangements designed to ensure that it is not to its financial advantage to do so.
I shall now turn to the main financial terms of the agreement. During negotiations it has been impressed on us by the board of British Aerospace that Rover Group operates in a highly competitive industry and that, notwithstanding the recovery in 1987, its current and prospective levels of profitability are insufficient to meet the interest burden on debt built up through many years of accumulated losses. The Government have been equally concerned that the merger of these two major British manufacturing groups should move forward only on a firm financial footing.
Since 1975, when the Government became the majority owner of British Leyland, the banks have been content to advance large sums on the strength of the Government's involvement. In order that the company is in a fit state to return to the private sector it is appropriate that we should deal with this accumulated indebtedness, which no

company without similar backing could be expected to maintain. Of course, we would have had to undertake this exercise whatever route had been adopted for Rover Group's privatisation. The Government have therefore agreed that the Government will make a cash injection of £800 million into Rover Group for this purpose.
Following agreement on these steps to strengthen the Rover Group balance sheet, we have been able to conclude an agreement to sell the Government shareholding in Rover Group for £150 million.
We have also agreed with British Aerospace and Rover Group arrangements whereby £1·1 billion of Rover Group's trading tax losses will effectively be eliminated, leaving only £500 — [interruption.] — £500 million of these losses will remain to be claimed against Rover Group profits in the future. British Aerospace has also agreed that other currently available tax reliefs within Rover Group will be applicable only within that group.
I turn now to the elimination of the Varley-Marshall-Joseph parliamentary assurances relating to Rover Group's bank debts, trade creditors and other obligations. These currently total approximately £1·6 billion. While Rover Group has been in public ownership, the Government have given assurances that the obligations of the group will be met. No new obligations incurred by the Rover Group after the date of completion will benefit from the assurances. Obligations incurred between now and the completion date will cease to benefit from the assurances on completion.
The negotiations with British Aerospace have concerned only the Government's shareholding in Rover Group. British Aerospace has said that, following completion of its acquisition of the Government's shares, it will make separate proposals to Rover Group's minority shareholders in due course to acquire their shares. British Aerospace has made it clear that these proposals will be fair and reasonable and will be made after consultation with the Rover Group board and its advisers.
The agreement is, of course, subject to the approval of the British Aerospace shareholders and the completion of the normal European Community procedures. We also expect to receive the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading.
I should like to explain what progress there has been on the European Community implications of these plans. On 14 March we notified the European Commission that we proposed to deal with the necessary restructuring of Rover Group's finances. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State met Commissioner Sutherland on 23 March to explain the Government's objectives and proposals. He had a further meeting with Commissioner Sutherland yesterday. The Commission met this morning and decided to open the formal state aid procedure. I am confident that the Commission will expedite its investigation.
The agreement brings to a successful conclusion the privatisation initiative that began in earnest with the flotation of Jaguar in 1984. Since he took office in May 1986, Mr. Graham Day has presided over a remarkable period of change. The House should pay tribute to his achievements. He returned the group to an operating profit last year. He has already returned 18 Rover Group businesses to private ownership. These include the trucks and bus activities, Unipart, Istel, and Jaguar Rover Australia, which are all trading profitably under their new


owners. The final step that I have announced today will fulfil our commitment to privatise Rover Group within the life of this Parliament.
In the hands of British Aerospace, Rover Group would have the best available chance of developing its independent role in the vehicle industry. We cannot afford to underestimate the contribution to the economy of the largest United Kingdom passenger vehicle producer with a turnover of £3 billion, exports of £1 billion, direct employment of 43,000, and indirect employment of two or three times that number in the component supply sector, as well as over 50,000 jobs in Rover Group's distribution networks. This will strengthen Rover Group's ability to compete at home and abroad and thus benefit all those who work with and for it, as well as the economy as a whole. I commend the agreement to the House.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Has not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster got his seasons confused? Is not Christmas, rather than Easter, normally the season for giving? Is not this astonishing statement another sad instalment in the sorry saga of the Government's long attempts to write off Britain's largest indigenous car manufacturer at any price? Is it not an act of political irresponsibility and industrial sabotage, totally lacking in industrial logic or commercial sense?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that he is paying British Aerospace £650 million—enough to raise child benefit by £1 per week—to persuade it to walk away with net assets worth £770 million? How can that crazy logic be justified, even in terms of this Government's ridiculous economic calculations?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also confirm that, with his characteristic lack of regard for the taxpayer's interests, he is writing off £1·1 billion of debt that is owed to the taxpayer, allowing Rover and its future owners to retain enough tax losses to ensure that they pay no tax whatsoever on any profits that they may make in the next few years?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman comment on reports that tomorrow British Aerospace will reveal that it is short of cash itself? Is it not clear that BAe views Rover as a sort of cash cow to help it over a liquidity problem, and that instead of putting money into volume car manufacture it intends to take it out—hardly the right basis for an industry that desperately needs a long-term commitment to investment if it is to survive? What assurances can he offer the House that the investment that is desperately needed will be made by a cash-starved BAe?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that Rover's collaboration with Honda is crucial to its future? Does not the cancellation of the Legend project make it clear that Honda is already disenchanted, and will it not become even more disenchanted as the greedy logic and confetti money basis of the deal becomes increasingly clear?
What assurances does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have that the EEC will complete its investigations in time or in favour of this ridiculous deal?
Finally, what assurances can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House about the future of this vital British industry? Is not his statement a further sign that all that the Government wish to do is to wash their hands of this important industry as quickly as possible, with no regard whatsoever for the future of the work force or for Britain's industrial future in this vital area?

Mr. Clarke: I did not follow all the hon. Gentleman's financial logic—if that is a fair description of the way in which he put his questions. If he is acquiring a somewhat belated concern for the interests of the taxpayer, he might reflect on the experience of the taxpayer since 1976, when the company was taken into public ownership, because during that time the taxpayer has had to pay £2·9 billion to cover the losses that have been made by the company. If the hon. Gentleman tries to convert that into other things that might have been bought by the taxpayer with that money, he will find that he reaches some spectacular conclusions.
When the hon. Gentleman comes to analyse the bargain that the Government have struck with British Aerospace, he should reflect, first, on the full terms, which I gave the House in some detail. At the moment the taxpayer is facing an obligation under the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances that amounts in total to £1·6 billion. On the basis that I have given, that prospective liability will be extinguished in the next few months and no now liabilities will accrue under that head.
When it comes to extinguishing the tax losses that have been accrued by Rover in the past, like several of his hon. Friends when I read it out, the hon. Gentleman totally misunderstood the implication of that. Extinguishing those tax losses means that they cannot be offset against future profits. It is to the benefit of the Exchequer to extinguish over £1 billion of accumulated tax losses, and it is worth about £400 million prospectively to the British economy. The remaining £500 million of tax losses available to British Aerospace is of use to it only against future Rover Group profits, and Rover Group has been earning those on its trading profit and loss account during the past 12 months.
The hon. Gentleman says that British Aerospace regards Rover as a "cash cow". I assume that that is his description of British Aerospace's commercial judgment that the company is a good long-term investment from which it expects to earn profits in the future. I trust that it will do so if its management is successful in developing the business.
The hon. Gentleman has no reason whatsoever for casting doubt on Honda's reaction to the deal. We have sounded out Honda, which is content that its important commitment to and involvement with the Rover Group should continue. The hon. Gentleman is irresponsible in casting doubt on that.
I advise the hon. Gentleman to go away and study the deal. It is an extremely good day for the taxpayer that we can see the end of the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances and extinguish all those tax losses. It is a very good day for the Rover Group and all who work in it that a company such as British Aerospace has judged that it wishes to bid for that company and that it sees a long-term future for the business.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about sabotage, he has a brass neck. During the past fortnight the activities of the trade union and labour movement have sabotaged 1,000 new vehicle jobs in Dundee. When he is faced with a deal such as this, a little modesty on his part would be rather suitable.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the deal. Is he not doing what BAe and Rover should do? Should they not get together in the same way as General Motors,


Ford and Boeing in the United States, to strengthen the production and manufacturing technology available to a combined group to compete in the world today?
I am delighted that BAe is acquiring the management talents of Graham Day, but may I have an assurance that no pay-off is involved relating to BAe's problems in financing the Airbus?

Mr. Clarke: The judgment made by the management of BAe is in line with that made by other successful companies in other parts of the world. There is nothing unique about an arrangement between an aerospace company and a vehicle manufacturer.
I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no hidden deal behind the full details that I have given the House today. In particular, our arrangements with BAe on its aerospace business remain as they have been: a close pattern of partnership.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not unfortunate that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not a Member of the House of Commons, which has pre-eminently the right to discuss economic and financial matters, and to which the Secretary of State might then be personally accountable?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Public Accounts Committee may well wish to examine the justification for the sale, and will certainly want to distinguish between the Government's right to produce policy objectives and the right of the taxpayer to be sure that his money is protected?

Mr. Clarke: This is a collective decision by the Cabinet and the Government. The Government are, of course, answerable to the House for their decisions, and are certainly accountable to the House for the way in which they look after public money and the taxpayer's interests. They have absolutely nothing to fear from an examination of the arrangements by the Public Accounts Committee. If the Committee wishes to take evidence, we shall welcome the opportunity to explain further.

Mr. Hal Miller: May I turn from the politics of the Opposition to the jobs of my constituents, and the constituents of many other west midlands Members?
I welcome the early timing of the announcement to relieve uncertainty. May I ask, however, whether out of the "dowry", if I may describe it thus—in view of the expression
committed to the further development of Rover Group"—
any commitment was sought for the replacement of the Metro car, which accounts for two fifths of the Rover Group's sales and is the only Rover car in the country that is in the top-selling bracket?

Mr. Clarke: I can assure my hon. Friend that BAe has told us that it looks on its acquisition of the Rover Group as a long-term investment and is committed to the maintenance and development in the longer term of the group's present business. It would clearly be wrong for the Government to impose constraints and commitments on the management of the group when it must make its own decisions on capital investment and on its future.
I am in no doubt that BAe has acquired the business to develop and maintain it. Obviously, it will address itself

—together with the Rover Group management which is joining it—to the future well-being of the business and the shape of the product range.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister agree with his noble Friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne, who has described these as "golden giveaway terms"? Does he agree that the Government are paying BAe to take the Rover Group off their hands just as it is becoming profitable, and will he at least guarantee that the Government's golden share of 15 per cent. in BAe will be maintained?
It is now clear to the electorate that, whatever else may be the case, investments in the economy are not safe in the Government's hands.

Mr. Clarke: If those comments by Lord Bruce-Gardyne are accurately quoted, I flatly disagree with them. I advise the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and my noble Friend to study the terms more closely and to consider the full extent of the contingency liabilities and obligations that the taxpayer now faces in owning the Rover Group. As a consequence of the deal, we will extinguish all those assurances and all the excessive tax losses, and will return the company—on a sound basis—to the private sector, where it has a better prospect of thriving in the future. The arrangements for the golden share in British Aerospace remain unaffected and stay as they have always been announced.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I thank Leslie Crowther for that statement, which is the industrial equivalent of the 5p cemetery. What will the Minister say to give any confidence to the workers of Rover, given that BAe has just announced its intention to reduce its costs by one fifth in the next two years and by a further one third in the following two years? Since Rover and BAe are both heavily dependent on export markets, and are therefore vulnerable to the falling dollar, what guarantees is the Minister giving today for the jobs of Rover workers against the background of that economic cutback? With an increased tendency towards sweating in Ford, Jaguar and Land Rover, is it not a fact that car workers' trade unions will have to strenghthen their organisations to fight the battles ahead?

Mr. Clarke: British Aerospace is in a highly competitive market in both its civil aviation and military business. Therefore, I have no doubt that all those with the interests of BAe at heart will welcome the commitment of the management to bring down, and keep down, its costs and remain competitive, which I am sure it will endeavour to do. The guarantee of jobs that the hon. Gentleman seeks cannot be given, except in the context of looking for jobs to be assured by continued success in the market place. It does not matter who owns the company, whether it is a public sector or private sector owner, of whatever sort. The well-being of the company and those who work for it depends on its continued success in the market place and the continued improvement in performance that we have seen under Graham Day's leadership in the past 12 months.
The idea that the organisations representing car workers need to be strengthened does not instantly come to my mind. What is needed is for the organisations representing those workers to come up to date with the 1980s and realise that the attitudes that they have


displayed recently in the face of an attractive Ford investment proposal in Scotland will set the car industry in this country moving backwards, rather than forwards.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this is a welcome end to a disastrous story that was started by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he put together two companies that should never have been together? Is it not a vindication of the Government's policy of a step-by-step privatisation of the original British Leyland group, culminating in this arrangement with BAe? In fact, the paying of £800 million is a good deal when it gets the taxpayer off the hook for a £1·6 billion guarantee. The taxpayer should be rejoicing, and we should be wishing the firm every success in the future.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is a remarkably successful outcome to the Government's attempts to prepare the Rover Group as a whole for a return to the private sector. I agree that we should look back with relief to the ending of a period during which almost £3 billion has been expended by the taxpayer on covering losses in that group, when we all know how £3 billion of taxpayers' money could have been put to other purposes had the group not been performing as it was.
On the matter of the £800 million, the fact is that the bank indebtedness of the company was allowed to accrue only because the Government were standing behind it. No other company trading in the same way as the Rover Group could have built up that bank indebtedness. It is simply not reasonable to expect it to be taken on by any new purchaser. That would have applied however we had eventually moved to privatisation of the group. Therefore, we have extinguished that bank indebtedness but, at the same time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) points out, we are getting rid of all sorts of other liabilities for the taxpayer which cannot be brought to an end except by successful privatisation of the sort that I have announced.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that BAe buying Rover is a remarkable achievement for a privatised company —British Aerospace—encouraging first Royal Ordnance plc and now Rover into the private sector? Will he recognise that in writing out a contingent liability we are saving potential damage to the taxpayer? In recognising that the fortunes of the company are bound to be significantly improved in the private sector, we are now certain that the company can continue to expand as it has done so dramatically since it was first privatised.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my right hon. Friend. As a result of the changed industrial climate and the Government's economic policies, we have seen a powerful manufacturing group emerge composed of what were fairly unsuccessful nationalised industries only a few years ago. Every responsible hon. Member must wish that this great group will go on to be a very powerful manufacturing force in the British economy.

Mr. Terry Davis: As BAe needed Government help to fund its contribution to Airbus development a year ago, how will BAe find the money to finance new model development at Rover Group in future? What assurances, estimates or forecasts has BAe

given the Government about jobs at Rover Group in view of the tremendous job losses that have taken place at BAe since it was privatised?

Mr. Clarke: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is, by implication, criticising the provision of launch aid for the Airbus project. Launch aid is in no way a subsidy. It is aid to develop a product which has a particularly long lead time before it can produce any returns. It also enables BAe to engage in the Airbus project, which is still at a fairly early stage of development in the civil aviation market. However, launch aid is not a subsidy, because there are agreements attached to launch aid whereby it will be repaid on terms that will show a return agreed in advance with the Government. There is no way in which a comparison can be drawn between that aspect of financing civil aviation and the capital needs of a vehicle business. Of course, the company will have to look to its resources and ability to raise money on the assets to finance its future model development. That is inevitable in that business as in any other.
The loss of jobs in BAe is the inevitable result of the competitive pressures on the company. However, the security of jobs in any business depends in the end on the ability of the business to remain competitive and its ability to produce products that it can sell successfully in the market place. No nationalisation process can get round that.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Within the agreement between BAe and the Rover Group, has there been an agreement on management contracts for the most able members of the Rover board? Was any other organisation prepared to put up more money than BAe for the Rover Group?

Mr. Clarke: I cannot, of course, give details of the contracts of individual managers with the new company, any more than I could give details off the cuff of existing management contracts. I know that BAe regarded the existing management of Rover Group as one of its assets, and it intends to continue to work with the existing management. This will cause the minimum of disruption to those engaged in the company. We did not receive any offers from anyone else. We received some expressions of interest, but they have proceeded no further. We have reached a satisfactory conclusion to our negotiations with BAe.

Mr. Andrew Smith: This appears to be a very generous settlement for BAe. It is getting Rover Group on the cheap. In return for this generosity, what specific assurances has the right hon. and learned Gentleman secured for the future investment in model development and the continuity of Rover's presence in the volume market? What form will the legal agreement over relinquishment take? What has happened to the £80 million from the pension fund which the workers contributed to the Rover Group balance sheet? In view of the importance of this matter for jobs and industrial success in my constituency and elsewhere, should we not have a full debate on this issue as soon as possible?

Mr. Clarke: I have not the first idea what price the Opposition think they would have negotiated in such a deal had they embarked upon one. I suspect from some questions from other Opposition Members that they have


not yet fully absorbed the details of the very successful bargain that has been struck between BAe and the Government in reaching this arrangement.
We have not imposed requirements on the purchasers of the company about model development or the volume that it should seek in the market, because we believe that it is contrary to the interests of the company and everyone working in it to attempt to put those political constraints on the management's ability to manage the business in the best interests of the company and those who depend on it.
The pension fund in the Rover Group accumulated a surplus. Together with a large number of other companies, the group is taking a tax holiday on contributions with regard to the company and increasing the benefits to the members. The employers and the employees have both contributed to the pension fund. I understand that both are now benefiting from the fund's good performance and there have been improvements to the benefits, for which credit should be given.
As I told the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) a moment ago, the Government would welcome the opportunity to explain the position to the Public Accounts Committee, if the Committee regarded the matter as important enough to look at, and we would certainly welcome a debate on the Floor of the House. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is ready to arrange a day for such a debate, through the usual channels.

Mr. Roger King: I welcome the conclusion of the negotiations. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that Austin Rover is the tip of a manufacturing iceberg, because thousands of component suppliers throughout the midlands, and indeed the country, feed into the two main assembly plants. They have geared production for an output of 500,000 cars per year. Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the new management of BAe has the financial backing and commitment to ensure that such volume manufacturing will continue and, with it, the prosperity of large chunks of our manufacturing businesses?

Mr. Clarke: Throughout the negotiations, we have been conscious of the interests, to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention, of the component suppliers and the distributors, and the tens of thousands of jobs that are indirectly dependent upon the Rover Group's business. I think that they will welcome the outcome of these negotiations because we have achieved the conclusion of the privatisation process without disrupting business or creating any excessive uncertainties. My hon. Friend will remember that when various other bidders were rumoured to be in the field two years ago and there was uncertainty, the company lost £250 million-worth of sales, 2 per cent. of its market share, which it has never recovered, and there was considerable alarm among dealers and component manufacturers. This has been a smooth process which has had their interests very much in mind.
The continued volume of production and success of the business depends entirely on the success of the management and work force in maintaining and improving their position in the market place. We believe that the privatised company will be much better placed to compete in that market place than it would be if it continued in public sector ownership.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman kindly answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) about whether he or the Government have received any estimates or forecasts of the effect of this deal on the employees of the Rover Group, and perhaps its suppliers? Does he agree that, just as BAe must put the matter to ballot of its shareholders, it is only fair that the Government should put it to a ballot of their shareholders—the electorate?

Mr. Clarke: I made it clear a moment ago that we have not entered into detailed commitments about the future shape of the business, except that BAe has made it clear that it has bought the company as a long-term investment and is committed to its continued development. The total number of employees engaged in any particular occupation will depend, as I keep saying, upon its success in the market place. I am in no position to make forecasts about that for anything more than the immediate future. The acquisition in itself has no effect upon employment prospects in the group, except to give a little added security to those who work there because of the potential benefit of the company being free to trade as a private sector company.
I have no intention of embarking on a referendum on this subject. The judgment of the people might be a little more reliable than that of the Labour party, but I fear that the period of uncertainty during the referendum would do a huge amount of damage to the business and all those dependent on it.

Sir Giles Shaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my congratulations on the speed as well as the success of the negotiations that he has led? Perhaps those congratulations should also go to that hard-working team of officials who serve him so well. Will he lift his uncharacteristic shyness on two aspects? Will he comment further on, first, the Honda association and the joint projects undergone by Honda — not just the management commitment, but the project list — and, secondly, on the competitive business within the European Community? My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the opening of the European processes. Does he have some confidence that they will be closed favourably at the appropriate time?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who had responsibility for this business at more difficult times. As he was so successful in assisting the company through those difficult times, I am sure that he is as delighted as I am to see the project come to such a successful conclusion with this privatisation
We have ascertained that Honda is perfectly content for the acquisition to go ahead. Indeed, it appears to welcome it. It would have been somewhat worried if a car manufacturer had shown an interest in the group, but we have had no offer from any car manufacturer. Honda has shown its willingness to continue to collaborate model by model with the Rover Group, which has been important to the group in the past.
Processes within the EC will inevitably take a little time. All the other member states have to be given the opportunity to comment on the state aid element of what we propose. We have the Commission's agreement to expedite that process as quickly as possible, and I hope that it will be concluded within the next few months.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that, while BAe is paying £150 million, the tax loss concession is worth £175 million to it, so it ends up with £25 million in hand? Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman handed an inquiry to the Public Accounts Committee on a plate? Is it not true that the only people who who have benefited from this matter in the past few days, and indeed, today, are those who are speculating in BAe's shares who have pre-empted this decision and who will inevitably make a substantial gain?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Public Accounts Committee and no doubt he will have an opportunity to put forward those arguments again. I remind him that the taxpayer is guaranteeing £1·6 billion-worth of bank and trade creditors who have been dealing with the company on that basis until now. Those liabilities will be extinguished over the next few months. For the moment, because of its losses, the group has accumulated £1·6 billion-worth of tax losses, which could be offset against any future profitability of the group, at great expense to the Exchequer. We have extinguished over £1 billion-worth of those tax losses, and that in itself saves the Exchequer a contingent liability of about £400 million. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the deal more closely he will see that it is a bargain for the taxpayer, that proper accountability can be mantained for the public interest and that it is good news for BAe and those involved in the Rover Group.

Mr. Michael Stern: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a clear assurance to the House that any future application for launch aid by BAe will in no way be affected by its link with the Rover Group, whether or not the Rover Group is running at a profit at the time and whatever means of financing the Rover Group is being conducted by BAe?

Mr. Clarke: I am not anticipating any early application for more launch aid from BAe, because we have only recently concluded the launch aid arrangement for the A330 and A340. If any future launch aid applications are made, we shall look at them on exactly the same basis as we have looked upon past applications in the light of our statutory obligations and our judgment whether they are justified in order to get a project under way in the interests of the national economy. I can assure my hon. Friend that the agreement that I have announced today in no way affects our dealings with BAe on the other parts of its business.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the Minister explain the logic of the sequence that when private companies go bust they are taken into public ownership to protect jobs, with taxpayers' money they are turned into profit, and then, when they are in profit, they are handed back to private enterprise? All the industries that have been nationalised in the past 20 years have been badly run in the private sector. What guarantees has the Minister that this enterprise will be better run in the private sector than it presently is in the public sector?

Mr. Clarke: I do not want to give too long an answer to explain the sequence of events. I am sure that hon. Members will recall the background. The economic and industrial climate in the country was quite disastrous to the success of any major manufacturing industry. There was raging inflation, large public sector deficits and a

steady loss of competition in international markets. Car companies were overmanned and inefficient, with over-powerful and out-of-control local trade union leadership encouraged by the Government of the day to continue to obstruct any moves towards real competitiveness and higher efficiency. The Government then nationalised the company to protect it against reality and to subsidise continued over-manning and inefficiency. Nearly £3 billion-worth of taxpayers' money was lost in covet-mg the losses.
Then a Government came in who were determined to improve the climate of British industry, to back up the management that wished to turn the company around, and to support Graham Day and his team in their efforts to produce the first trading profits. We are now putting the company back where it belongs, in the private sector, in an economic environment that is very attractive to the whole of British manufacturing industry.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that two fundamental points are being missed? First, the Rover Group has been purchased by a British company, which is important. Secondly, looking at the balance sheet of the Rover Group, and bearing in mind that my right hon. and learned Friend certainly is not in a seller's market, he and his Department have achieved a very good deal indeed for the taxpayer. Will he confirm that when he approaches the Commission, he will argue that Renault recently had 1·2 billion-worth of debt written off by the French Government, with the approval of the Commission? When he argues under articles 92 and 93 of the treaty of Rome, will he use the same arguments to gain approval for the deal as the French Government used?

Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's pleasure at the fact that the company that made an offer to the Government for the Rover Group is a British company and one of our major manufacturing companies. That is welcome indeed. I agree that the deal that we have struck in selling the Government's shareholding is reasonable and fair and perfectly advantageous to the taxpayer and to the companies involved.
When we go to the European Commission we shall point out that the state aid that we shall be providing will be part of the process to return the company to the private sector, where we expect it to thrive in a competitive environment. Therefore, I trust that the Commission will look favourably upon the suggestion as a logical step in getting rid of a history of subsidy and loss and enabling the company to enter a privatised setting, which ought to be consistent with the whole policy of the Community towards the European market.

Mr. James Lamond: What is so special about British Aerospace, which is declaring redundancies in my constituency, that it has managed to get the Government to suspend their normal policy of allowing free play of the market in competition and getting a splendid bargain because it happens to be the first in the queue to ask for it? Bearing in mind that it took a long time for the Government to decide to give launch aid, even as a loan, it is surprising that the decision was reached so quickly. May we look forward to the day, as the owners of Rover, that the company will ask for launch aid for new models? Will the taxpayers have such a bargain when that is taken into consideration?

Mr. Clarke: British Aerospace has reached this successful conclusion because it was the first company since the election to put the proposition to us that it wished to acquire a company which everyone knew we proposed to privatise. We gave it exclusive negotiating rights for a period because we feared the disruptive effects on the business if everyone began making bids for it and created a great air of uncertainty for the company, its component suppliers and distributors. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman finds the speed of the negotiations disconcerting. It is true that for a change this piece of business has been conducted with reasonable secrecy, expedition and good sense on all sides. That is the way in which good government should be conducted.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the excellence of the arrangements, and particularly for the fact that a formula has been found to keep the company British. I would have thought that that would find complete accord with my colleagues across the Floor. Will the understanding and the obligation given that the company will remain in the present hands for the next five years also apply to all subsidiary parts of the company, including Land Rover? This would allow for the further protection of the employment of my constituents.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend represents Yardley in Birmingham and I am sure that his opinion coincides with that of the vast majority of the people who live in Birmingham whose well-being depends to a large extent upon the industry. We will have to wait to see, but my expectation is that this arrangement will be welcomed by the work force and by all those who work in the area and are dependent on the Rover Group for business. Most will share my hon. Friend's view of the purchaser and welcome the fact that British Aerospace has been the successful purchaser. We have entered into an agreement whereby British Aerospace will not be able to sell the whole business or any substantial part of it during the five-year term. I am certain that it will not be able to sell off Land Rover separately during the five-year agreement.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Will the Minister help us by clarifying paragraph 3 of his statement:
Before entering into a contract with British Aerospace we considered a number of confidential expressions of interest, but none amounted to a specific offer"?
How could there be a specific offer from anyone if no one had the information on which to base the offer, which was exclusive to British Aerospace? Was there any interest from Ford, and did Ford express any annoyance at the way in which it was treated over Austin Rover?

Mr. Clarke: I cannot disclose commercially confidential approaches to us. I certainly cannot start disclosing the nature of the representations made to us by different companies or identify the companies involved. As I have said, we had various expressions of interest, but none of those amounted to an offer. —[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has given an explanation of why, perhaps, there was no offer. I have explained to the House why we felt that it was right to agree to the request of British Aerospace and Rover Group that there should be a period of exclusive negotiation with British Aerospace. The alternative would have caused considerable uncertainty to all in, and possibly disruption to, the business. Therefore, we pursued exclusive negotiations, which have come to a successful conclusion. No one could complain about that.

Mr. Dalyell: What about Ford?

Mr. Clarke: I am not prepared to disclose the nature of our exchanges with individual companies or to identify those companies. Such approaches are commercially confidential.

Mr. Ian Mills: Does my right hon. and learned Friend find as surprising as I do the degree of hypocrisy and synthetic attitude of many Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), in particular about foreign ownership? Will he confirm that this must be the best offer for the 45,000 people working at Austin Rover? Does he agree that the need for a secure future for the 51,000 people working in the distribution network, and the hundreds of thousands who work in the components industry, is often forgotten? Finally, does he remember the great opposition from Opposition Members to Land Rover going to General Motors and Austin Rover going to Ford, and does he agree that the solution for a good British company bringing in technical skills must be the best possible solution?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that had there been privatisation with another company there would have been wild indignation from the Opposition if another car manufacturer had expressed an interest, or an overseas company had expressed an interest. They are pressed to find objections to British Aerospace, which is a rather popular and successful company. As far as I can see, their main criticism has been about the terms that we struck. They are trying to convince the House and the public that the Labour party would have struck a more successful privatisation deal with some unknown purchaser—an unlikely concept.
With regard to my hon. Friend's last serious point, it is particularly good news for all those who work in the components industry. There will be more jobs in the industries that provide the components for the Rover Group, such as Unipart, than there are in the Rover Group itself. The smooth transition from one ownership to another, with no threat of disruption to the business, will be welcomed by all those interested in the components industry.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the fact that there is to be another statement after this one and that there is a very heavy day in front of us. I shall allow questions to continue for another five minutes and then we must move on. I say now, rather than at the end of this statement, that I shall consider calling those hon. Members who are not called now when this matter is debated on another occasion. I ask for brief questions, please.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The Minister has told us that Rover's debts are £1·6 billion. What are the company's assets, and how do they compare?

Mr. Clarke: In December, the net asset value was £334 million, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the report and accounts of the company and the balance sheet that will eventually be put to British Aerospace shareholders for a further and an up-to-date figure.

Mr. Richard Page: When my right hon. and learned Friend considers the remarks


of the Opposition, will he remember that they reached the zenith of their financial control with the operation of the National Enterprise Board? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that other large motor manufacturing companies have billions of pounds worth of invesment lined up to produce new models and new developments? Does he therefore accept that the terms that he has announced today are barely enough, if enough, to ensure that Rover escapes permanently from the public sector?

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments about the Opposition's record when they were in government. It bears no comparison with our own. I agree also with his final judgment that their attacks upon us show complete schizophrenia. One moment they object to the fact that we are injecting cash to eliminate £800 million of bank debts that would never have been accumulated if the company had not been in the public sector, and the next moment they suggest that the new group will not be strong enough to raise the capital to invest in new models. Had we handed this company to anybody without doing something about the scandalous level of debt that it has been allowed to accumulate when it was under public sector control, it would have been in considerable difficulties. That is why it is a perfectly sensible bargain to get those debts out of the way before the company is returned to the private sector.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Minister not be so dismissive about the interests of the workers in the company, particularly in relation to the pension fund? Is he aware that today car industry workers are far more alert and aware of the consequences of the pension fund? Recent industrial action in the car industry was not about wages and conditions; it was about pensions. The Minister has been far too dismissive this afternoon of the fact that it is his responsibility to ensure that the interests of the workers in the pension fund are fairly dealt with. There is evidence that the "increases" in no way reflect the amount of the increase in the pension funds.

Mr. Clarke: I am extremely concerned —as concerned as the hon. Gentleman—about jobs in the car industry and about the well-being of the work force. My opinion is that the position of the work force in this company will be made better, not worse, by transferring the company to the private sector, where it will have a better chance of thriving in the market place. One reason why we are acting as we are is that we believe that privatisation is in the interests of commercial organisations and of all those whose livelihood depends upon them.
The last time that we had an exchange on the pension fund I made inquiries to find out what the dispute was about over the Rover Group's pension fund. It seems to arise from a misunderstanding of a perfectly ordinary process, whereby a pension fund has accumulated a surplus that has been earned on the investment of both employer and employees. The employer and the employees are benefiting from that surplus by way of a holiday on contributions for the employer and improved pension benefits for the members of the fund. That does not justify a strike in the car industry or in any other industry, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not lend his support to groundless strikes in this or in any other industry.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he has secured a very good deal

for the British taxpayer, in the sense that he has found a willing buyer for the Rover Group? Does he recall the uncertainty that prevailed just two years ago and the damage that was done to the business of the company at that time? Will he contrast that with the excellent way in which he has concluded this deal, which guarantees British ownership?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's judgment of the bargain that we have struck, and I have every regard for his opinion in these matters, which is more accurate than that of our critics on the Opposition Benches. I also agree with my hon. Friend that most people outside the House will welcome the fact that the successful purchaser is a great British company and that it is a major exporter of manufactured goods from this country. I am quite sure that the opposition from the other side of the House would have been very strong if anything else had occurred.
On the last occasion, when we did not proceed in a different way but when rumours emerged about the interest of other companies, the effect was devastating, and in a period of about two months the company lost 2 per cent. of its market share, which it has never recovered. This time, the comparable confidentiality, the expedition of the negotiations and the fact that we never declared open house to all the other bidders has been to the great advantage of the company and of all those who work for it.

Mr. Greville Janner: What are the legal arrangements that are allegedly designed to make it not in the interests of British Aerospace to sell within rive years, and how enforceable are those arrangements? How can the Minister possibly say to the House and to the nation that he has obtained the best possible offer when he did not provide to any company other than British Aerospace the information that would have been needed in order to obtain appropriate offers from anyone else, including Ford?

Mr. Clarke: We have attached terms to the injection of cash into the Rover Group so that, even if there were to be a sale within five years, the first £650 million of any profit would go the Government? It would not therefore be in the financial interests of British Aerospace to avoid that term. If it attempted to use the tax losses over and above the £500 million that remain, then, pound for pound, that benefit would be taken back by the Treasury, so again it would not benefit the company if it sought to do that.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why we gave no other company the opportunity to make an offer. If we had provided everybody else with such an opportunity, we should have run the risk of causing great uncertainty and disruption to the business.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in 1960 we produced 14 times the number of cars that were produced by the Japanese, but that by 1979 they were out-producing us by eight to one? Have not the British car industry, the British car worker and the British taxpayer paid a heavy enough price already for the years of union plutocracy and the emasculated management of the car industry? Is not this, under very difficult circumstances, an extremely good deal?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. In 1988 the vehicle industry in this country is being completely transformed. That has to be compared with the position in the late 1970s, when the Government of the day intervened and poured taxpayers' money into the industry to enable it to remain uncompetitive, overmanned and inefficient, in the belief that somehow that would safeguard jobs in the industry. One sees that there are plenty of Opposition Members who fondly imagine that that is the right way for a Government to behave towards an important commercial undertaking.

Mr. Gould: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House, preferably with the authority of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is sitting beside him, that there will be a full opportunity to debate this extraordinary statement during the week that we return from the Easter recess, particularly so that we can press him for the answers that he has notably failed to give us this afternoon on such issues as the prospective job losses, which the Rover Group must surely have discussed with him? Is he aware that, in the absence of any such assurance I shall ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider an application this afternoon under Standing Order No. 20 for a debate forthwith?

Mr. Clarke: The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House is sitting beside me, and he has intimated that he will welcome an opportunity to discuss, through the usual channels, the possibility of a debate on this matter. I do not think that he would want me to bind him to exactly when that debate is to take place, but I am sure that he has taken on board the request for an early debate. I personally would welcome such a debate.
I realise that the details of this deal are complex but I attempted to be as explicit as possible in my statement. It is remotely possible that when people have studied the details they will not wish to press for such a debate, but if they do so we shall be happy to debate the matter once more. I look forward to taking the matter further. I hope that by the time we hold our debate I shall have more encouraging news about our progress towards making this conditional agreement a final agreement—as we make progress with the European Commission and as we move towards the general meeting of British Aerospace shareholders.

Urban Policy (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about urban policy in Scotland. I am today publishing a document entitled "New Life for Urban Scotland" which explains our policies and sets out our plans for major new initiatives. Copies are available in the Vote Office and have been placed in the Library.
Since the 1970s much has been done to revive Scotland's urban areas and in particular to bring new life to inner-city areas, for example through Glasgow Eastern Area Renewal in Leith and in Dundee. It is generally agreed that Glasgow and other areas of Scotland are being transformed. But in the 1980s it is the people living in the large peripheral estates who are suffering most from choice in the type of housing they occupy, who have the least say in running their communities, and who are most dependent on state benefits and services.
In drawing up our proposals, we have carefully examined the lessons of recent experience. Future action will therefore be firmly based on the principles of helping residents take more responsibility in various ways for their communities, of full involvement of the private sector, and of partnership between different public bodies and the private sector.
It is especially important that we renew the self-confidence and initiative of local people and help them to assume increased responsibility for their communities. The way is open through, for example, involvement in training opportunities, tenant co-operatives, housing associations, school boards, small businesses and self-employment. It is essential that residents are fully involved and committed to plans to regenerate their areas.
The private sector has already demonstrated the important part it can play in bringing back new life to deprived urban areas. The Government are committed to increasing further their involvement, both through our wider economic policies and through encouraging investment in deprived areas. It is part of the task of both central and local government to create a climate in which the private sector feels able to invest. We hope the private sector will examine with enthusiasm the scope for investment in areas currently neglected. We want to see it involved from the outset in new urban regeneration initiatives. There are opportunities for investment which would both be of benefit to the private sector and make a major contribution to the economic and social regeneration of these areas.
For the Government's part, there is in place in Scotland a strong array of instruments to pursue urban renewal. some £500 million will be spent on urban renewal in Scotland in 1988–89, over and above local authority spending. The Scottish Development Agency is using its comprehensive powers in many places. Last year it spent £62 million on urban renewal. Urban renewal is a major priority in its corporate plan over the next few years.
The urban programme will spend £44 million this year, an increase of £6·4 million. We are announcing today approval of 225 urban programme projects, worth £8·9 million. Scottish Homes is soon to be created as a new and important housing agency, which will work alongside the SDA in pursuing urban regeneration. It will build on the expertise of the Housing Corporation and the Scottish


Special Housing Associaton, which between them spend over £125 million per year on urban renewal and which fully support the proposals that am announcing today.
In addition, we are announcing today that £25 million is being specifically earmarked next year for new housing-related urban regeneration initiatives by the Housing Corporation. This replaces the original figure of £12 million referred to in paragraph 45 of the document. As announced on Friday, we have also just issued extra housing capital allocations to district and islands councils totalling £77 million, as a result of the popularity of council house sales. Policies on health and social services, crime, education and training provide special support to areas of urban deprivation. Enterprise is to be encouraged through the wide network of enterprise trusts, the enterprise allowance scheme, training and the new range of regional assistance. The Manpower Services Commission will spend some £250 million in urban areas, which will contribute to urban renewal.
With so much already happening, the Government's first aim is to sustain the momentum. But this is not enough; over the next 10 years a new priority must be given to tackling the problems of the peripheral estates. The Government will therefore establish a number of initiatives which will simultaneously pursue economic, environmental, housing and social objectives in peripheral estates. Four major new initiatives will be located in Castlemilk in Glasgow, Ferguslie Park in Paisley, Wester Hailes in Edinburgh and Whitfield in Dundee, subject to consultation with the local authorities and other bodies concerned.
Partnership will be required for taking forward these initiatives, involving the local community, the Government, the SDA, Scottish Homes, the local authorities, the private sector, the health boards, the MSC and other public bodies. The Scottish Office will initiate the development of such partnerships over the next few months and will be responsible for steering their progress. Ministers will be directly involved. The Government will look to the SDA and, in due course, Scottish Homes, to play a leading role in implementing the initiatives, and the initiatives will need a local base in the communities themselves.
Moreover, the SDA, with local authorities, the Housing Corporation and the private sector, has plans well advanced for smaller-scale local initiatives in peripheral estates at Barlanark in Easterhouse, Glasgow, Forgewood in Motherwell and Tulloch in Perth. These pilot initiatives are aimed at revitalising these estates through action on housing, employment and the environment. The public and private sectors will contribute an estimated £45 million to these smaller new pilot initiatives. The SSHA, in consultation with the Housing Corporation, also has in hand an important housing initiative in Castlemilk, which will cost several million pounds.
We expect that these new initiatives will make a major contribution to tackling the characteristic problems of urban decay and will set a pattern for urban regeneration in Scotland into the 1990s. The work of urban renewal in Scotland, however, will extend more widely than these outlying estates, and the policies which we have set out are aimed at bringing new life to cities and towns throughout Scotland.

Mr. Donald Dewar: After all the advance publicity and public relations hype, this

statement is a sad anticlimax. What can we say? It is a beautifully produced brochure; it is glossy; it is splendid in its layout; but, sadly, it contains nothing. There is little hope here for those struggling with the effects of urban deprivation. The statement that the Secretary of State has made takes us no further forward. It deals in banal generalities.
Is financial provision not the key? And what have we been given, apart from a gathering of bric-a-brac from the past ingeniously packaged to give the impression of generosity? What new money is included over and above what has already been announced, and what new money is coming directly from the Government? How can anyone be impressed by talk of an additional £77 million for housing authorities when this depends entirely upon receipts? Glasgow's nominal share is £11 million, but all of it is to be found by selling assets. There will not he a penny, as I understand it, from the Government.
Is it not a fact that capital spending on housing in the public sector was scheduled to fall between 1987–88 and 1988–89 from £556 million to £505 million? The one specific addition that I can detect in this document, which is an additional £13 million for urban regeneration, announced today, still leaves in effect a cut of some £38 million between this year and next year. This whole presentation has been a mirage and a confidence trick.
We are promised four new initiatives; it is stated as a bald fact. But where are the details on structure or on funding? We are told that it is too early to specify what these initiatives will cost, clearly because neither the right hon. and learned Gentleman nor his advisers have thought out what is to be done. The document discouragingly warns that the overall level of expenditure on urban regeneration will be determined annually through the public expenditure machinery. On top of that, we are promised that Ministers will be directly involved. There is certainly little to cheer about there.
The Secretary of State boasts about the role of the private sector, but there is not a name to be seen, no hard information, no figures. Unlike the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he cannot even promise breakfast for the eager entrepreneurs.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that we welcome any initiative that involves all the relevant agencies, including local government, is properly funded and does not represent a takeover bid againt the wishes of the local community? There is absolutely no guarantee in this document or in this apology for a statement that those criteria have been met.
Does the Secretary of State recall that he and his colleagues have recently been given to quoting the Grieve report? Has he read the committee's final statement, published yesterday? If so, did he notice its view, on the question whether finance could realistically be expected from the private sector to tackle the problems of urban deprivation, that
the Scottish Office produced no evidence of a conclusive or even convincing character and obscurity remains"?
Is that not a fair and balanced judgment on today's shoddy exercise in window dressing?

Mr. Rifkind: I can now see what the Glasgow Herald meant this morning when it said:
Labour's problem is that it opposes everything and appears to have nothing constructive to say.
That sums it up more eloquently than anything that I could possibly say.
I noticed that towards the end of his remarks, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the Opposition would welcome any new initiatives that sought to work with the local community and to provide partnership between the public and private sectors, leading to proper provision for the problems. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that that is exactly what the statement does.
I would make the following points in answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions. First, the hon. Gentleman was right to say that, for the most part, we are not talking about new money — [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] No, because resources have not been the problem in the past. Hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of pounds have been invested in Glasgow's housing and in the housing stock of local authorities throughout Scotland. If we are faced today with these appalling problems on peripheral housing estates, as Professor Grieve concluded, resources by themselves will not solve the problem unless we know how to use them adequately.
It so happens that the statement includes about £25 million of new resources to be used by the Housing Corporation. Much of it will be available in the four areas in which the initiatives are to take place. I take pride in the fact that those additional resources are available because of the popularity of the Government's policies of house sales. Tenants have responded to the Government's policy and as a result we can now reinvest the resources into the housing stock in a way that gives double chargrin to Opposition Members. They are upset and annoyed that tenants are buying their houses and that the money is going back into housing to improve the remaining housing stock. I can understand their disappointment, but they cannot expect anyone else to share it.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Garscadden said that he of course welcomed any new initiatives but believed that there was nothing in these initiatives to be welcomed. It will be interesting to see whether Glasgow district council shares his view and whether Edinburgh district council and other local authorities declined to co-operate on the grounds that there is nothing in the proposals to benefit the housing estates in their localities.

Mr. Dewar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is now trying to withdraw that insinuation, but he cannot have it both ways. If local authorities believe that the proposals do not represent any significant new initiative, they will doubtless show complete disinterest. But the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that if local authorities have the interests of their tenants at heart they will welcome these initiatives.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the Grieve report. He will appreciate that Professor Grieve identified what the Government have been saying for a long time — that single-tenure housing estates are one of the causes of the problem. Professor Grieve recommended that Glasgow district council should dispose of up to 25 per cent. of its total housing stock, and up to 50 per cent. in the peripheral areas, to have any prospect of resolving the social and economic problems in those localities. If the hon. Member for Garscadden quotes Professor Grieve, I hope that he supports the report's analysis.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members from Scotland that we have a day ahead of us in which they are heavily involved. It may just be possible—I cannot be certain—that some of their questions to the Minister could be raised in the debates to come. I ask them to ask brief, preferably single, questions, so that we do not delay too long.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the attitude of the Opposition to any new initiative, whether in housing or Ford at Dundee, is utterly depressing and negative? Will he accept my congratulations on his new policies and, realising that they are so popular, extend them to the rural areas of Scotland, which are anxious to have the opportunity of further urban development? Will he bring in the Scottish Sports Council to help improve the quality of life, either through private money or directly through Scottish Sports Council aid?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank my hon. Friend and acknowledge that many of the rural areas have difficulties which the Scottish Development Agency and other bodies must take into account.
As for my hon. Friend's general point, it is very sad that the Labour party, which claims so often to speak for Scotland, has produced over the years virtually no original thought on housing, education or urban regeneration; it appears merely to believe that resources, irrespective of how they are used, are the solution to all the social problems that we face. The party offers a depressing prospect.

Mr. Bruce Milan: The Secretary of State has mentioned four peripheral estates, but is he aware that they are all in areas that have suffered seriously over the past few years from cuts in housing grant and housing capital allocations? If that money had been available to local authorities, many of the problems in those estates would not exist.
It is pathetic that, even after announcing these initiatives, the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot give a single penny of new money. He says it is "too early" to specify how much the initiatives will cost, and there is no commitment to extra money. If he wants to call GEAR in aid, he might at least acknowledge that it was launched by the Labour Government—by me, in fact. At the time of its launch we took on the financial commitment for the following five years—that is the difference between what we did and what he is doing.

Mr. Rifkind: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that the problems of Castlemilk or Whitfield, or the other areas, began in 1979—

Mr. Millan: I did not say that.

Mr. Rifkind: I am glad that there is a common view that the peripheral estates in Scotland have suffered problems for many years, on which the resources that even the Labour Government provided for them appeared to have little practical effect.
The GEAR initiative, initiated by the right hon. Gentleman and continued with the full enthusiasm of the present Government, has been a great success. He should therefore be the first to acknowledge that other initiatives, this time in the peripheral housing estates, that involve


some principles similar to those of GEAR but which also seek to learn the lessons of GEAR, may have an even better prospect of success.
One of the problems of GEAR was that, although it produced major environmental and housing improvements, it did not provide job opportunities for the local population within GEAR areas, partly, perhaps, because the people were not sufficiently involved in the development of economic opportunities in those areas.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that if there is no new money, people are entitled to consider this afternoon's statement a piece of cynical window dressing? Does he acknowledge that the statement portrays a worrying trend of seeking to write down the role of local authorities in the new initiatives? That is of great concern to us.
I ask the Secretary of State how towns such as Hawick in my constituency and schemes such as Burnfoot can expect to benefit from his announcement?

Mr. Rifkind: First, I said that there was going to be an additional £25 million for the Housing Corporation. Secondly, areas such as Hawick in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have pockets of severe deprivation.

Mr. Kirkwood: Pockets?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, pockets: they are small towns.

Mr. Kirkwood: The whole town of Hawick?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is free to express his view. If the local authority wants to apply for urban aid, it will be eligible for consideration.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that every time he announces Christmas, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and Opposition Members suggest, by mirage and con tricks, that it is in fact a crucifixion? We welcome today's statement. We in Perthshire are delighted with my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement about Tulloch in Perth. We are glad that he is imitating the great events that occurred, thanks to a Tory administration, in Pilton in Edinburgh, and look forward to him doing the same for the country towns and steadings of Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend is correct to give the example of Pilton. There, the involvement of the private sector has, as anyone who knows it will confirm, made a substantial difference to improving the locality and the quality of life of those who live in it.

Mr. John McAllion: If the Secretary of State can tell me what new money falls to the Whitfield estate in my constituency— over and above money already in the pipeline—I shall be pleased to welcome it. However, I remind him that there is more than one peripheral housing estate in Dundee. Half Dundee's population live in estates such as Whitfield. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me a guarantee that the four major area-based initiatives will not be pursued at the expense of less funding, less attention and less care for housing estates everywhere across Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I certainly thank the hon. Gentleman for what I think was an indirect welcome for the inclusion of Whitfield in the list of initiatives. While some priority will

be given to the four main initiatives, we recognise of course that many other areas in Scotland, including in Dundee, require similar treatment. They cannot all be included in the first areas to be considered. We have tried to achieve a geographical balance, and to recognise some of the different kinds of peripheral estate that require to be the subject of the initiatives we put forward.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Scotland will recognise this initiative as something that really begins to tackle the problems, for the first time, of so many people living in council houses that are in appalling conditions? Successive Governments have failed to tackle these problems, so this initiative will be so welcome along with the involvement of people in their own affairs and in the community in every respect, as well as the involvement of the private sector. All this is real devolution, from which the people of Scotland will benefit.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Unless one gets active participation and not simply acquiescence of the local community, one cannot claim to have regenerated that community. Therefore, we genuinely believe that the local community must be involved in a very substantive way in the developments and initiatives that will take place within their area. It is not simply a question of regenerating buildings, as we must be able to provide a quality of life for the people in that area. That does not mean that we must provide for them; they must be part of that provision if it is to be at all meaningful.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Is not the real situation that the Government, through their policy of cutting and capping local authorities, have created a situation in which building and improvement is grinding almost to a halt? In so far as the glossy developments illustrated in the brochure have come from local authorities, that has been achieved despite and against the actions of the Government. They have given us the HP sauce: when shall we see the bloody meat? When will we get new money? Is there any new money?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman, representing as he does a Paisley constituency, might have preceded his remarks by welcoming the fact that Ferguslie Park is included. —[Interruption.] It may not be in his constituency, but it is a rather curious concept that the hon. Gentleman has suddenly become so protective about anything that happens in the other half of Paisley. I do not take it entirely seriously. This is good news for Paisley and the hon. Gentleman should have had the courtesy to recognise that.
In relation to resources, we announced just two days ago £77 million of new allocations for local authorities, because of the success and popularity of council house sales. Today, I have announced a further £25 million for the Housing Corporation, also as a result of receipts from sales. That will all go towards rehabilitating the housing stock in these localities.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does it not accurately summarise the Government's priorities that £800 million can be found to privatise the Rover Group, but only £30 million can be found for Scottish housing, as set out in this document? Is it not the case that £30 million is entirely inadequate to deal with the enormity of the


problems in Scottish housing? Will the people of Scotland not read the Secretary of State's glossy brochure and ask where the cash is?

Mr Rifkind: On the contrary. If people wish to know about the cash, they will find out about the £500 million to be spent on urban renewal over the next year in the various ways that I have mentioned. The hon. Gentleman, as an economist, should be the first to appreciate that, despite large sums of money being spent already, it is not the sum of the resources, but how they are spent, that determines whether schemes are successful.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State accept that, when we are considering past economic developments, the builders of the new town in Edinburgh and the merchant city of Glasgow did not do their discounted cash flow sums? We are looking for coordination of initiatives that involves not just urban Scotland but the whole of Scotland. Will he accept that there are problems, particularly in mining communities, which I have referred to before? They are being decimated under his Administration. People have no buildings like those in the centre of Glasgow to look up to. This is a severe problem. The Secretary of State ought to give it some attention, and give additional money and real resources to these communities.

Mr. Rifkind: I do not dissent from much of what the hon. Gentleman says. It is sad that neither he nor his hon. Friends have said how they believe these additional resources should be spent. They approach this issue simply by saying, "Please give us more money." [Interruption.] Well, in none of the contributions made today and on other occasions have we heard any explanation of new ways in which the hon. Gentleman and his friends would wish to use new resources. My statement indicates a new approach to urban regeneration. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with it, he should address himself to providing a coherent alternative strategy that does not just depend on the incantation, "Give us more money."

Mr. Eric Forth: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the quality of life in council house estates over many decades has suffered from the tyranny of mismanagement by local authorities, lack of involvement by the tenants, the iniquitous points system, and many other factors? Will he assure the House that, within his proposals today, there will be a real effort to delegate and devolve to people real responsibility for their own homes and estates? Will he do everything possible to assist in that, and in the continued sale of council houses, as in that way, a new sense of pride and involvement can be engendered in Scottish council house estates.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Glasgow district council is the largest landlord in western Europe. In several local authorities, such as Motherwell, about 80 per cent. of the housing stock is still owned by one landlord — the local authority. I do not think that anyone, whatever his political views, believes that that is healthy. To be fair, even the Labour party seems to have come round to realising, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, that that position is not in the interests of their

constituents. The real debate is not in terms of the argybargy that we have heard today, but about how we can meet the aspirations of people in Scotland who live on these housing estates, and who do not believe that the existing arrangements meet their aspirations or provide them with the sort of community or housing that they want for themselves and their families.

Mr. Allen Adams: I think the House should be aware that the Minister and his colleagues have received in the past week, to the best of my knowledge, four or five invitations to visit the north end of Paisley. They have turned down every one of them. That shows how much they care about the north end of Paisley.
Twenty years ago, I was elected by the people of Ferguslie Park to Paisley town council. Ever since then, I have seen every cheapskate Tory politician use the poor as a platform to peddle nonsense. Is the Secretary of State aware that the solution for Ferguslie Park is capital investment and jobs? Unemployment there runs at least 60 per cent.
There is no excuse for the Secretary of State's failure. Next to Ferguslie Park is the biggest airport in Scotland. We have one of the best road systems in Scotland and an excellent railway link from Ferguslie Park and Paisley. Yet the Secretary of State has failed abysmally to attract any medium-sized industrial firm into that area in a decade.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is implying by his question that he would rather we did not include Ferguslie Park in our major initiatives, I shall be very happy to consider that.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Secretary of State expressed in his statement enthusiasm for partnership to implement his four initiatives. In Castlemilk, part of which is in my constituency there is a Castlemilk area liaison committee, comprising local authority representatives and statutory bodies and, most important, local community representatives. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the Castlemilk liaison committee will be a focal point for implementing the initiative in Castlemilk?

Mr. Rifkind: I hope that it will be very much involved. We shall need to consider who are the proper representatives of the community; if that organisation is representative, of course it will be involved. I must repeat that, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), it is typical of the Opposition that even hon. Members representing constituencies affected by these initiatives are unable to give them even a general welcome. That shows more clearly than anything I could say that it would not matter a whit what the Government say, as Opposition Members are adopting a negative and hostile attitude that is as boring as it is predictable.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Paragraph 63 of the document that we have been discussing refers to the contribution of sport and the arts to the quality of life in urban areas. Indeed, both the Scottish Sports Council and the Scottish Arts Council are then referred to with approval in the document. In the light of that approval, and the contributions made by both agencies, what additional funds are the Government prepared to make available to both of them so that they can extend and expand the work that the Government obviously approve of?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. and learned Gentleman, I am sure, should know that the Government are providing the Scottish Sports Council with particular new resources to enable it to have new headquarters. That has been identified by the Scottish Sports Council as crucial to its continuing work. The Sports Council and the Scottish Arts Council have the same necessity as everyone else, which is to identify the priorities to be attached to their overall activities. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that those activities are relevant to urban regeneration. That is why the Government have drawn attention to them.

Mr. Tony Favell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the most welcome pieces of news this afternoon is that a realisation is dawning among the Scots media that if Scotland were promised the moon, the Labour party would vote against it? Are the Scots aware that their image in the rest of the United Kingdom is that of a bunch of negative nellies?

Mr. Rifkind: There is a lot of sad truth in what my hon. Friend says, because there is an assumption that it would not matter what the Government announced because the Opposition, and even their Members in constituencies that are most directly affected, would find every possible reason—[Interruption.] The fact is that that is the sad reality. It is a matter for great sadness that, instead of seeking to identify in a constructive way changes or improvements that might be made to the Government's proposals, the Opposition simply react in the most predictable and tedious fashion — as they are doing today.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Paragraph 30 of this document refers to the three extant enterprise zones. It also says that there may be exceptional circumstances which might lead to the creation of a further enterprise zone. What is the likelihood of an announcement about an Inverclyde enterprise zone being made during the Prime Minister's proposed visit to my constituency? Incidentally, I have not been notified of that visit by the right hon. and learned Gentleman or by any other Scottish Office Minister. What is the likelihood that there will also be an announcement about new jobs in Greenock and Port Glasgow during the Prime Minister's proposed visit to my constituency?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see whether there is an early announcement about an enterprise zone for Inverclyde. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman attaches enormous importance to Inverclyde obtaining enterprise zone status. I hope that he will show some patience, so that a decision can be reached in due course.

Dr. Godman: Next time, I should be informed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Does not the Secretary of State recognise the sheer anger on the Opposition Benches? This document was written 13 years ago in Strathclyde and we have been hamstrung for that time by the lack of resources. Then what occurs? The Secretary of State produces a glossy document claiming the ideas for the Government, but still does not produce resources. I should like to ask the Minister one specific question. Page 7 of the document says:

The private sector effort has been focused through the Glasgow Action initiative.
How much money is there?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should know that the private sector has in many ways made a major contribution of a kind that the Opposition prophesied would not happen. For example, Local Enterprise Grants for Urban Projects is a Government initiated scheme, and £29 million of LEGUP has brought in over £170 million from the private sector. The hon. Gentleman should he the first to appreciate that the private sector would like to make a major contribution to jobs in his constituency, despite his opposition to its efforts.

Mr. David Marshall: Since my constituency received some of the benefits of the Glasgow Eastern Area Renewal project, I welcome this initiative for other areas even though, unfortunately, it is too little, too late. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that these projects will receive the resources that they need to complete the job? The GEAR project did not receive such resources. Will he guarantee that the Government will not pull the plug two thirds of the way through, leaving people feeling bitter and disillusioned, as happened with the GEAR project?

Mr. Rifkind: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the comments in the first part of his question. On his latter comments, he will appreciate that, throughout the period of the GEAR project, the Government ensured that major sums of public resources were provided. The fact that GEAR has been the success that almost everyone says it is, must lead him to accept that it could not have been a success if the Government had starved it of resources over the last nine years. The GEAR project was initiated by the hon. Gentleman's Government, but since 1979 the project has been the responsibility of this Government. It could not be the success that it is acknowledged to be throughout the United Kingdom if it had not been generously treated in the way that I have mentioned.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: As one who is interested in urban renewal—[Interruption.]

An Hon. Member: Is he a Member?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hind: —may I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on a very imaginative approach to a very difficult problem?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are in the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Hind: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Are hon. Members to understand that my right hon. and learned Friend sees the sale of council houses as one of the major vehicles of his urban renewal policy? Is it not an achievement for his Department that he has been able to make £77 million available to councils throughout Scotland to add to the money that he is putting in for urban renewal throughout Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: There is undoubtedly a need and a desire for greater home ownership in Scotland, but it is not simply a question of home ownership. The crucial objective in these very large peripheral housing estates is a multiplicity of tenure, involving housing associations, tenant co-operatives, home ownership and municipal


housing. It is only when we get such a wide variety of housing stock that we can claim to have a proper spectrum of housing opportunity for the people in the locality.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the Wester Hailes area, his report and statement will not be welcome because his record shows the Secretary of State's commitment to Wester Hailes to be poor? Three years ago, rather than give additional funds to Wester Hailes, the Secretary of State starved Edinburgh district council of capital allocation and the council had to go to Japan to find extra money.

Mr. Rifkind: I say to the hon. Gentleman, as kindly as I can, that in the months that he has ceased to be a councillor for Wester Hailes he has obviously got out of touch with the local community, because only some weeks ago the people in the community wrote to me saying that if the Government were to initiate projects of this kind, they hoped that Wester Hailes would be included.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, unlike my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) and for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) we in Monklands endured a recent visit by the Secretary of State? It is not something that I would necessarily recommend to my hon. Friends. Like this glossy document, which covers a multitude of missed opportunities, the visit had much to do with public relations and very little to do with real jobs.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the second largest employer in my constituency, the laudable Summerlee heritage park, deals with industrial archaeology? Have the Government abandoned any industrial strategy that means investing in manufacturing industry? Will our people who have suffered long-term unemployment continue to do so? There is nothing in this document, just as there was nothing in the Secretary of State's visit, that offers those people any real or tangible hope.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman had been present when I visited his constituency, he would know that the claim that he has just made is unfair. The purpose of my visit was to open some industrial workshops that are providing employment in the Coatbridge area. So relevant was the visit thought to be that the provost of Monklands, who I understand is a political colleague of the hon. Gentleman, and representatives of Strathclyde regional council who are of the same political persuasion as the hon. Gentleman, thought the occasion sufficiently important to merit their attendance, even if the local Member of Parliament did not.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that every pretty picture in this brochure is the product of work initiated by or involving either a creative Labour local authority or an organisation brought into being by a Labour Government? Will he reflect upon that before spitting any more venom at the Opposition and the Labour party in general? I exclude from the category of pretty pictures his own rather unflattering portrait, for which we claim absolutely no responsibility.
Will the Secretary of State say what there is in this document for areas such as my constituency, which contain many manifestations of urban blight but which

apparently are not to be offered any solutions? Does he agree that, while we might ingratiate ourselves temporarily with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues by expressing warm welcomes for glossy documents, we would scarcely be doing a duty to the over 50 per cent. of people of Scotland who placed their faith in the Labour party if we were to lead them to confuse myth with reality?

Mr. Rifkind: Making the same exception as the hon. Gentleman did with regard to my portrait, I can confirm that all the projects to which those photographs refer were entirely funded by the Government or while the Government have been in office.
With regard to the value of the proposals, I find some paradox in the hon. Gentleman's question. On the one hand, he says that the document is worthless and of little value to the areas mentioned, but he then goes on to ask why no one from his constituency is included. He must make up his mind. If it is of little value to anyone, he should be uninterested in whether his constituency is affected.

Mr. John Redwood: What scope is there for increasing asset sales and raising more money that way from underused or badly managed assets in the public sector and for attracting more private capital? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be a sign of even greater success for Scotland when he can come to the House and say that the economy is so flourishing that the amount of dependency and reliance on public subsidy has reduced rather than increased?

Mr. Rifkind: That would be true of the United Kingdom as a whole, not simply of any one part of the United Kingdom.
There is indeed a substantial opportunity for further investment through asset sales. In the past week, some £90 million of additional housing expenditure has been announced as being financed as a result of the popularity of the right to buy for council tenants. That example can be emulated in other areas, given that it not only brings pleasure to the tenants involved, but enables much important work to be done on the residual housing stock.

Mr. Henry McLeish: Will the Secretary of State concede that unemployment remains one of the key issues in the inner cities in Scotland and on the peripheral estates? Does he accept that a sizeable proportion of the 300,000 people currently unemployed in Scotland are in the age group 18 to 25 and that many of them are located in the peripheral estates and the inner-city areas? Does he accept that the time is now ripe for a major initiative to be undertaken by the Scottish Office, the Manpower Services Commission and the Scottish Development Agency to move beyond YTS and the community programme and to give some life to many young people who are seeking hope in our great cities and deserve a better deal than they are getting at present?

Mr. Rifkind: I certainly acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has made perhaps the only constructive contribution from the Labour Benches this afternoon. He is right to say that the problem goes beyond the physical infrastructure and includes employment and economic opportunities in the area concerned. That is why, when the hon. Gentleman has a chance to read the document, he will see that we attach special importance to the fact that only


initiatives that provide economic opportunities, either through the generation of small businesses in those estates or through the infusion of private sector investment for employment prospects, will give the full success that we seek.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), who referred to the GEAR project, would be entitled to say that it did not succeed in every respect. The main area in which it did not succeed as we would all have wished was in respect of jobs in the locality. Although many jobs were created, they were not necessarily created in the GEAR area, but in other parts of Glasgow. We must ensure that employment is created as a result of those initiatives and that it is to the benefit of the people in the locality and not in the wider area.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in Edinburgh, many of the urban problems that afflict the peripheral estates such as Wester Hailes also afflict the city centre where, not very far from Prince's street, unemployment is running at one of the highest rates in the region, at over 20 per cent?
In an effort to be helpful, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider two points? Perhaps he will consider, first, the Government's policy in respect of grants for house improvements, which has endured a stop-start programme over the past three or four years. Secondly, perhaps he will consider MSC schemes and particularly the MSC's policy of funding a project for perhaps one or two years, then withdrawing funding or insisting that the staff change round so that, as soon as the programme gets off the ground, it has to start from square one again. That problem afflicts the city centre and the Secretary of State's constituency.

Mr. Rifkind: There are problems in the city centre in Edinburgh. My hon. Friend's announcement of a new non-HRA additional allocation to Edinburgh district council as well as to other local authorities will undoubtedly have helped in that matter.
The hon. Gentleman should discuss with his colleagues on Edinburgh district council the poor level of application that the council makes for help under the urban programme. Compared with some 45 applications from Glasgow district council, there has been a total of four from Edinburgh district council. The hon. Gentleman should realise that, if Edinburgh district council has the interests of the people of Edinburgh at heart, it is astonishing that it has made a tiny fraction of the applications that Glasgow district council has made. Both local authorities live under the same public expenditure regime. Therefore, if Edinburgh district council has been so inadequate in using the opportunities under the urban programme—it has been even more inadequate than the Lothian regional council—it has only itself to blame if there are many unresolved problems in the city centre.

Mr. Frank Doran: Later today the Secretary of State will be moving new clause 8 to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. That new clause will abolish four specific subsidies under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, whch were specially targeted at inner-city areas. I cannot help thinking that there is a paradox between what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying now and what he intends to do later. Will he explain that paradox?

Mr. Rifkind: It will be discussed in detail later. Those are all marginal grants which are of little practical benefit. The resources are still being made available, but in a more effective way.

Mr. Thomas Graham: The Secretary of State said earlier that Opposition Members never came up with anything at any time. May I recommend that he reads the Strathclyde document called "Social Strategy for the Eighties"? He has certainly picked up a great deal from that document and put it into his document. Strathclyde regional council has been pushing for many years to involve local communities, private groups and other groups. It is strange to see such a document.
I remember when the previous Secretary of State for Scotland visited the Linwood site and said, in front of many people, that, if anyone came along and wanted to build a factory to produce rubber ducks, the money would be available. The local people set up a group called the Linwood enterprise group. It came forward with a plan to use certain sections of a building to produce goods and work and to give the local folk in Linwood an opportunity to get off the dole and start being creative. Lo and behold, the Scottish Office turned the plan down. The group did not want to produce rubber ducks. It wanted it to produce something meaningful and useful to the community.
When we fly into the airport, as many hon. Members do, we fly over the old factory of India Tyres, which is now vacant. We come along the motorway and we see—

Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? He must ask the Minister a question.

Mr. Graham: I was just going to put my question.
There are two major areas in my constituency which are lying vacant and are desperate for regeneration and money. This document is meaningless because it does not afford local voluntary organisations the opportunity to get money. It does not show them anything.

Mr. Rifkind: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has problems in parts of his constituency. I can assure him that the document is relevant to the whole of urban Scotland and not simply to the four areas which will be the subject of the major initiatives. Clearly there are areas on which we wish to concentrate in the short term, but the resources currently available bring benefit to useful and meaningful projects all over Scotland, including the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. John Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that flashy advertising and cheap political jibes are no answer to the problems of urban regeneration in Scotland? Is he also aware that his performance this afternoon has been an insult both to his position and to the people of Scotland?
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so keen to keep saying that Opposition Members want nothing but money thrown at them, does he remember receiving from myself a document called "The Castlemilk Initiative" some three years ago? That document was as glossy as this, but it had much more substance. It was produced by the Castlemilk liaison committee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) referred earlier.
We discussed that document with the then Minister, Michael Ancram. We had lengthy discussions with him.


We produced every idea and initiative on economic planning, jobs, housing and environmental improvements in Castlemilk. We and Castlemilk representatives had the ideas and asked for one thing — money. Does the Secretary of State remember his junior Minister's answer? It was no.

Mr. Rifkind: After listening to the hon. Gentleman's contribution, I am not clear whether he is pleased or disappointed that Castlemilk is to be one of the areas for the major initiatives. When the hon. Gentleman has said whether he welcomes or is disappointed by that news, it will begin to be possible to have a coherent dialogue with him.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (TRANSFERS) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Matrimonial Proceedings (Transfers) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Horses, Ponies and Donkeys

Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect horses, ponies and donkeys against abandonment by their owners; to provide for statutory code of practice on the tethering of horses and ponies; to oblige owners to arrange for a humane method of identification for their animals; and for purposes connected therewith.
I have been reliably informed by people throughout the country that this is the moment for which horses, ponies and donkeys have been waiting. Indeed, a representative of each of those groups was brought to Westminster this afternoon, but I thought it inappropriate to attempt to bring them into the Chamber.
On a more serious note, the Bill attempts to deal with the abuses that these animals undoubtedly suffer. A report recently produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals states that 3,000 horses in Britain live a miserable existence, tethered by a length of rope or chain to a stake in the ground. That restrictive life style is made even worse in many cases when poor tethering and lack of attention mean that horses suffer severe discomfort and even death.
People who lack suitable facilities for these animals choose to restrict their movement by tethering, usually by a rope or chain attached around the animal's neck to a head collar and then fastened to a stake secured to the ground. Increasingly, parents buy a pony for their child without giving any thought to the requirements of the animal's upkeep or the costs involved in looking after it properly. The RSPCA inspectors' research found that many people had no idea of the amount of land required or quality of food needed to look after these animals properly. The cost of keeping a horse is enormous.
The horsemeat trade to the continent is especially prevalent in my part of Britain, the south of England. Horses waiting for the knacker's yard have a low economic value and do not receive anything like the attention they require. A particular cause for concern is the large number of horses and ponies left to fend for themselves on areas of hostile or non-habitable land, such as the Essex marshes. They are often left for several months before being rounded up. In the middle of the night, a van mysteriously arrives, the horses, ponies and donkeys are put into them, and they are then used for horsemeat. These incidents are repeatedly reported but neither the police nor the local authority can take any action.
We should consider the plight of horses used to earn a livelihood—for example, in sea coaling in the north-east of England. Many areas have a tradition of horse keeping dating back to the use of pit ponies, which were well cared for, but now some of these animals are not kept in a wholly suitable fashion.
I should like to outline the precise need for this legislation and why I believe that the Protection of Animals Act 1911 is not sufficient to give the protection that so many hon. Members want for these animals. Over the past year, the number of convictions secured for cruelty to animals increased by 17 per cent. Complaints to the RSPCA from the general public about tethered horses rate second only to those about the ill-treatment of dogs. Complaints increase when temperatures drop and horses tied to stakes or trees on wasteland are exposed to rain, wind or snow, with no shelter or little attention. An


excellent code of practice has been drawn up for the proper tethering of equines by the RSPCA, the British Horse Society and the Horse and Pony Protection Association.
The Bill will attempt to put a stop to illegal tethering by making it an offence to tether a horse without proper provision for the animal's well-being. Owners guilty of such ill-treatment shall commit an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Horses can be badly treated because they are not classed as farm animals, and this is a gap in the law.
My long-term aim is development of an identification system for these animals, because few are properly marked. Although I recognise that it might be difficult to undertake such a scheme, one hallmark of the Government is that they have never stood back from attempting to introduce legislation simply because it is too difficult. The Government seek to introduce legislation because they think it is right.
As it stands, the 1911 Act makes it difficult to prove an offence, whereas this Bill defines suffering more easily, making ill-treatment a specific offence and thus making it easier to obtain convictions. More important, the Bill will prevent suffering, and it is in that spirit that I hope that the House will support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to he brought in by Mr. David Amess, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Stan Crowther, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Allan Roberts.

HORSES, PONIES AND DONKEYS

Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to protect horses, ponies and donkeys against abandonment by their owners; to provide for a statutory code of practice on the tethering of horses and ponies; to oblige owners to arrange for a humane method of identification for their animals; and for purposes connected therewith : And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 April and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

Orders of the Day — Housing (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, we had a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland. We are becoming used to these statements because the Government in Scotland are struggling I do not understand why a massive number of civil servants from the Scottish Office seem to be necessary to assist with such statements. Is there some way in which the House can regulate who attends in an official capacity? This is an important point because some Opposition Members have no confidence in the Scottish Civil Service since—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member knows that no breach of order has been committed and that this is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Hogg: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a fresh point of order?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely, Members of the House regulate, through their Standing Orders, who attends the House. Is it appropriate for a Member to object to the presence of so many civil servants, brought here at great cost to the Scottish people, for little purpose?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. There is no Standing Order that governs the attendance of such staff.

Mr. Hogg: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is delaying very important business concerned with housing in Scotland. Does he seek to make a fresh point of order —one with which I call deal?

Mr. Hogg: The point that I seek to make is that there must be some means of raising this matter. Let me leave it at that and I shall find some means of raising the matter on another occasion.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is a frequent attender in the Chamber. He could seek to raise the matter through an early-day motion or the Procedure Committee. I am sure that it is not beyond his wit to deal with this matter by other means.

New clause 7

COST FLOOR LIMIT ON DISCOUNT ON PRICE OF HOUSE PURCHASED BY SECURE TENANT

".—(1) In subsection (1) of section 62 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (purchase price of house being purchased in pursuance of tenant's right) for the words 'subsections (7) and (8)' there shall be substituted the words 'subsection (6A)'.

(2) For subsections (7) to (9) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
`(6A) Except where the Secretary of State so determines, the discount for the purpose of subsection (1) shall not reduce the price below the amount which,


in accordance with a determination made by him, is to be taken as representing so much of the costs incurred in respect of the house as, in accordance with the determination, is to be treated as—

(a) incurred in the period commencing with the beginning of the financial year of the landlord which was current 5 years prior to the date of service of the application to purchase the house or such other period as the Secretary of State may by order provide; and
(b) relevant for the purposes of this subsection, and, if the price before discount is below that amount, there shall be no discount.

(6B) An order under subsection (6A) shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and may make different different provision in relation to different cases or circumstances or different areas.'.

(3) In subsection (10) of that section, for '(9)' there shall be substituted '(6A)'.

(4) Subsections (11) to (13) of that section shall cease to have effect.

(5) In section 76 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (duty of landlords to provide information to secure tenants) in subsection (1), for paragraph (c) there shall be substitued the following paragraph
(c) section 62(6A) may affect any price fixed as regards the house under section 62(1),".'.

(6) The said sections 62 and 76 shall, however, continue to apply as originally enacted in relation to the price of a house in respect of which the offer to sell (within the meaning of section 63 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987) was served on the tenant prior to the commencement of this section; but nothing in this subsection restricts the power of the tenant to withdraw his application to purchase or prejudices the effect of such withdrawal."—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 102 and 103.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I would not wish to shrink from responsibility for the fact— indeed, I very much welcome the fact — that housing is regarded as such a supreme priority in Scotland that a considerable number of civil servants do, indeed, attend housing debates. It is a measure of the importance that we attribute to the matter.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The Under-Secretary raises an important point in referring to the fact that so many civil servants have been brought to the House to support him on this important matter. Can he tell the House how many civil servants have been brought from Scotland today to support him at the Dispatch Box?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot give the exact number. However, we regard future housing provision in Scotland as of supreme importance. Some of the amendments that we shall be debating are very complex, and it is vital to get them right and ensure that they are in a form that stands the test of time.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance later.
The amendments seek to give effect to the Government's decision, as announced on 1 March, and as

I explained in Committee, on the right-to-buy cost floor rule. The new clause and the two amendments seek to repeal the present arrangement under which the discount available to tenants wishing to exercise their right to buy can be restricted, if the sale would otherwise take place at a price less than the debt outstanding on the house. We suggest instead that discount should not bring the price of the house in terms of the right-to-buy provisions below the historic costs incurred by the landlord in providing or improving the house since the relevant date, or the undiscounted market value if that is lower. The relevant date will be the beginning of the financial year five years before the right-to-buy application is made.
So if a local authority tenant applies to buy his house in November 1988, the cost floor will be the total costs incurred by the authority on that house since 1 April 1983. The price that the tenant has to pay for his house will fall below that figure only if the market value, as determined by the district value, is less than those costs. We propose that the relevant date should roll forward each year. So if a tenant applies in November 1989, the cost floor will be the costs incurred on the house since April 1984.
Hon. Members will recall that our White Paper last November suggested that the discount restrictions involved in the outstanding debt test should be abolished completely. We have, however, taken note of the many representations received from local authorities and other interested parties that difficulties could arise — on building and modernisation programmes and on house allocation—if we were not to keep in place some kind of discount restriction on new or newly modernised houses. The proposals we are bringing forward in these amendments reflect the care with which we considered these representations.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so my colleagues on both sides of the House who worked hard in that Committee will forgive me if I ask a question. In the areas that the Minister and I represent — Queensferry and Linlithgow — there have been problems with the definition of "newly modernised". What is the definition of "newly modernised"?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot give a technical definition, but I can give a general off-the-cuff definition. Houses that have been modernised by the district council will be taken into account in the five-year period. If the house has been modernised in the five-year period, the costs will be added to the historic cost of the House and it will be taken into account.

Mr. Dalyell: In the five-year period?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the five-year period; that is absolutely right. I think that this is a matter of common sense. I do not think that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) would disagree about what constitutes a modernisation programme or what a local authority might define as a modernisation programme.

Mr. John McAllion: Will the Minister confirm that the price must not fall below the historic cost involved in the previous five years but that if the tenant waited six years, the price could fall as low as that tenant's discount enabled it to fall? The tenant can get the full discount after six years even though the council may have spent £20,000 on modernising the house six years before. Is that right?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I should make it clear, as I did in Committee, that housing support grant would be increased if there was an adverse impact on the figures for the authority concerned, given that that authority was receiving housing support grant; some authorities just outside housing support grant might be brought back into it as a result.

Mr. Dalyell: There is a problem here. I have some sympathy with the Minister when he says that the question whether a house is newly modernised is a matter of common sense, but I am clear that in two cases the matter has gone to lawyers. There needs to be some kind of legal definition. What the Minister and I might think is common sense might not be accepted by people's solicitors.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall be delighted to look into the hon. Gentleman's constituency cases. Indeed, I should be grateful if he would send me the details because it is very important that these matters should be properly resolved.
I believe that the proposals will meet the general points of concern raised—for example, by local authorities—while at the same time allowing more tenants to purchase their houses without a restriction of the discount to which they are entitled on the strength of their public sector tenancy records.
The new clause refers to a determination which the Secretary of State will make on the costs that should be taken into account in calculating the new cost floor. We intend that the determination applying in Scotland should be broadly similar to that which applies at present in England and Wales under section 131 of the Housing Act 1985.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Minister saying that under his proposal it is still possible to sell a council house below its outstanding debt? Will he clarify that point?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In certain circumstances, yes, but we have to bear in mind that a house increases in value considerably in the five-year period—perhaps by as much as 10 per cent. a year. The new clause represents a compromise that will meet the aspirations of tenants who wish to purchase with a discount while not disadvantaging local authorities. That is why, after careful thought, we proposed the new clause in this form.
The provisions in the new clause and the consequential technical amendments represent a fair compromise between the interests of tenants and the interests of public sector landlords. Authorities will be able to adopt sensible building, modernisation and allocation policies without the distorting effect that the absence of any cost floor might have introduced, and more tenants will be able to exercise their right to buy without having their discount entitlement reduced. I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The civil servants referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) were not much help to the Minister when he was bowled a difficult one by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I understand why he brought those civil servants here; he has no Scottish Back Benchers, although I see the seventh cavalry arriving in the form of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
What we need in housing in Scotland is not civil servants but brickies. We seek from the Government some indication that they will ensure that houses are built and improved to cater for the needs of people in Scotland. The Government are simply trying to redistribute existing housing stock in an ill-considered manner. I stress that the Labour party strongly supports the development of home ownership in Scotland, but we should be encouraging home owners and private developers to invest in housebuilding and in the improvement of housing stock rather than simply raiding the public sector housing stock as has happened in recent years.
We object to the way in which the Government approach this question, which is reckless in a number of ways. Sadly, we are already discovering that it is reckless from the point of view of some home buyers, because people who have bought their council houses are finding that they cannot afford the real costs of home ownership, and a disturbingly large number are becoming homeless as their homes are repossessed by building societies. In my constituency, 5 per cent. of the allocation for council houses last year went to people whose homes were repossessed because of mortgage default. Therefore, owner-occupation is not the best answer for everybody, and the policy of encouraging owner-occupation regardless of the consequences does not always make sense.
That policy is also tragically harmful to the prospects of homeless people and for those who are stuck on housing waiting lists. Every time another council house is sold—although that may be very nice for the people who buy it— it means that there is less council housing stock, a slower turnover of that housing stock and a longer wait for those who are waiting for housing. Obviously, the policy represents reckless interference in the finances of local housing authorities.
We are all increasingly weary of reading Scottish Office press statements that give the impression that the Government are giving local authorities money to spend on housing. The Minister issued another only yesterday. The fact is that the Government are allowing Scottish district councils to borrow £58 million less than they were allowed to borrow last year, while the Government cheerfully anticipate a massive increase of £93 million in the profits from council house sales. That projected figure is 60 per cent. more than the figure for last year. Whether all that will come to pass, goodness knows, but it seems a particularly haphazard way of budgeting for capital expenditure on housing in Scotland.
This "policy" of cut-price council house sales is not a housing policy; it is simply a device for redistributing the ownership of some houses from the community to individuals who may be fortunate enough to qualify for the discounts on offer. There is no question but that that is popular among those who are in a position to take advantage of it. I fully acknowledge that. However, equally, there is no doubt that it has made life more difficult, for the reasons that I have already given, for people who are waiting to rent homes. There is increasing and distressing evidence that owner-occupation is not always the best form of tenure. I have given an example of the situation that is developing in my constituency which, I suspect, will be mirrored elsewhere in Scotland, where people are getting into difficulties after having bought their council houses.
The new clause seriously undermines the cost floor which at least ensured that district councils were not required to sell houses for less than the outstanding debt on those properties. Under the new clause, the cost floor will cave in after only five years. Incidentally, there is an interesting difference and disparity between that figure and the figure for England and Wales, where there will be an eight-year holding period for the cost floor. Perhaps the Minister will explain that difference.
Under the new clause, it will be possible for a district council to build a house for, say, £35,000 and if a tenant transfers into the house and qualifies for the full 60 per cent. discount, he might be able to buy the house for as little as £15,000 only five years after it has been built. Therefore, the district council would sustain a loss of £20,000 on that property. Only a small fraction of the 50-year loan charges will have been paid off during that period. Therefore, the district council's remaining tenants will have to pay the cost of that compulsory sale for, perhaps, another 40 years. It is the other tenants who have to pay the costs that the Government are building up for local housing authorities under this scheme.
There might be a case for that practice if the Government were to make up the shortfall that the district councils will sustain as a result of such sales, but, of course, the Government are not prepared to do that. The Government are saddling district councils with yet another serious financial hardship.
We know, that the district council house building programme in Scotland has seldom been smaller than at present. In the second quarter of 1987, only 316 houses were started by district councils in Scotland. That figure is only one quarter of the number that were built when the Government came to power nine years ago. Therefore, there has been a disturbing tail-off in the amount of council house building in Scotland. The Bill will make matters substantially worse. District councils will still have to cope with the growing needs of homeless people, but with a diminishing stock of houses to let because of the increasing rate of sales. That is generating particular problems in rural areas in Scotland, but the problem is reflected in other parts of Scotland also.
I seek one particular assurance from the Minister on new clause 7. Will the Government ensure that no district council runs into trouble with the district auditors for investing in new building while under the threat of compulsory cut-price sales after only five years, as would be possible under the new clause? District councils could be criticised for investing in urgently needed new housing if there is a prospect of those houses being sold within as little as five years for a fraction of what they have actually cost. If the Government cannot give an assurance on that, they will have to accept responsibility for halting the building of homes to let by local authorities in Scotland.
Finally, I repeat this question to the Minister. Why is the cut-off period for the cost floor being set at five years in Scotland, when the equivalent figure in England is eight years?

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Although I am supposed to be reassured by the Minister, I have certainly not been reassured by his comments on the new clause which, in its

potential effects on local authorities and therefore on the provision of housing in Scotland, is one of the most serious parts of the Bill.
By tinkering with time limits, the Government's proposal makes only a slight modification and in no way meets the problems that it will create for local authorities throughout Scotland.
I regret that amendment No. 165, which I tabled, was not selected, because it would have reversed the present proposed financial unfairness and given local authorities, and the public purse, a greater chance to survive and contribute to Scotland's housing.
District councils should never be asked, unless as a major exception, to sell houses at less than the outstanding debt on them. The outstanding debt must be the minimum acceptable or the remaining tenants will carry debt for a lost public asset. If less than the outstanding debt is taken, the consequence must be that the poorer tenants will simply carry that loss, due to the Government's council house sales policy. District councils will carry out considerable administrative and legal inquiries on receipt of an application. Those costs also will be unfairly borne, at no benefit, by the remaining council house tenants.
The new clause merely tinkers with the time limit and fails to address the real and dangerous problems that the Bill poses for local authorities. In one local authority, a house built in a prize-winning council estate at a cost of £34,000 is now likely to be sold for £23,000—in other words, at an immediate loss of £11,000, which is almost equivalent to taking £1 from every council tenant. If that happens due to the sale of only one house, the consequences of a housing sales drive are potentially catastrophic to that district council.
The new clause will not change that situation. Without any protection for existing local authorities and existing public authority tenants, such sales will be a massive burden on rent payers and will virtually stop all new public sector house building. Is that really what the Government want? The problem strikes at the heart of the public housing system and will lead to the poorest tenants directly subsidising the wealthiest ex-tenants and the best houses.
Such catastrophic financial losses would also stop modernisations, because the value of a house does not rise proportionately to the money that is invested in modernising it. A £10,000 modernisation, for example, might hardly affect the price arrived at by the district valuers. It would certainly be nothing like the public money that had been invested. Therefore, local authorities would have a disincentive to modernise and to create a capital debt for no return.
I fear that, unless it is amended, this part of the Bill will lead to the downgrading of public housing to such an extent that it will cease to be a dynamic, progressive and innovative system, due purely to the kind of financial penalties that have been created by legally enforced sales of assets at massive subsidies. That would be bad news for Scotland's homeless people and for those in damp or overcrowded housing, and it would be major blunder by the Government.
Under the new clause, housing sales can take place at prices below the outstanding debt but without added discount—but going back for only five years on new properties or modernisations. Councils should never be forced to sell houses at vastly less than the outstanding debt. The Government are failing adequately to address this core problem.

Mr. McAllion: It is always wise to approach any initiative taken by the Government with considerable circumspection.
I was recently visited by two constituents who looked to benefit from the provision, and were pleased to find that, if they put off buying their house for another couple of years, they would he able to gain substantially. The Government's intention, of course, has been to direct their legislation towards particular groups of tenants, hoping to win them across politically — but to do so at the expense of other tenants who are bound to lose from such measures.
It is important to place the new clause in the context of the existing housing position in Scotland. The position outlined in the glossy document, "New Life for Urban Scotland", is entirely fictitious. In reality, 30,000 families in Scotland are homeless, and that number is continuing to rise. More than 1·25 million Scots live in overcrowded conditions, and millions of pounds need to be spent to eradicate the damp and condensation that make far too many lives a misery.
I am especially concerned about the effect of the new clause on the public sector housing authorities, the district councils and the Scottish Special Housing Association—shortly to be replaced by the new agency Scottish Homes. Those are the very authorities many of whose houses badly need modernisation programmes, but their capital budgets make it impossible for them to carry out modernisation and rehabilitation to meet the needs of the tenants to whom they are responsible. The district councils and the SSHA must therefore be selective about which houses they pick for modernisation — so many in the current financial year, and so many in the next. But for the majority of houses in need, there is no prospect of modernisation or rehabilitation in the short or medium term.
My constituents in the Craigiebank area draw my attention again and again to the state of their windows. As the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) knows, the housing scheme is one of the most desirable under the control of Dundee district council.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the capital costs of building the Craigiebank houses? If he does not know the answer, I do, and I shall be delighted to give it to him.

Mr. McAllion: I am a much younger man than the hon. Member for Tayside, North, so I do not remember. The houses were built pre-war, when the hon. Gentleman assures me that he was fighting the Japs—although, as he is only 50, I doubt that very much. I am making a serious point. My constituents come to me complaining that their windows need replacing. No one would deny that, but the sad reality is that, owing to the restrictions placed on Dundee district council's capital spend programme, the houses are not included in the five-year programme for that council, and there is no immediate prospect of their being accepted for modernisation.

Mr. Walker: My intervention was meant to be helpful rather than disruptive. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have understood that. The very desirable Craigiebank houses were built for a few hundred pounds, which is interesting in the light of the impression given by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), that all houses will be valued at less than their historic costs.

Mr. McAllion: That point is not really relevant to my concern. I am talking about modernisation programmes, and the district council's responsibility for selecting groups of houses for those programmes. Many of the tenants have been there for a very long time, and therefore qualify for the maximum discounts—up to 60 or 70 per cent. of the market price. As each house can cost the district council up to £20,000 to modernise, the new clause will add a new factor to local authorities' considerations when they decide which houses and flats to include in modernisation programmes: they will now have to take into account how long tenants have been in the houses.
Surely it is better to decide to spend up to £20,000 on a house in the knowledge that the tenant has not been in the house for long, and that when, after six years —under the new clause—he applies to buy the house, it will represent a much smaller loss than the council would incur if he had been there for 25 or 30 years, and qualified for the maximum discount. When tenants of houses such as those in Craigiebank, who have been in their houses for a considerable time and qualify for the maximum discount, apply to buy their houses under the new clause, the council—which spent £20,000 only six years earlier—will experience a much more serious loss than if it had modernised a house whose tenants have been there for only a short period.
The new clause contains an in-built bias against two groups of tenants: those who have been in their houses for a long time, and those who are in a position—and the council knows it — to buy their council houses The council will have other considerations. It must consider the important group of tenants who live in damp houses, houses with condensation, overcrowded houses —properties that are unsuitable for one reason or another. Tenants on low incomes or social security benefit will never be in a position to buy their houses.
Surely the council will say to itself, "Is it not better to spend what money we have for modernisation programmes on those who we know will be our tenants for the next 20 or 25 years, so that the money is spent for the benefit of our tenants, rather than for those who will buy their houses from us in five or six years?" To spend the money on houses that will be transferred from council stock will represent a loss not only to the council but to all the tenants who live in unsuitable housing, and who will never be able to buy their houses and take advantage of new clause 5.
The Minister has given an incentive to district councils to choose for their modernisation programmes only the houses that they know will remain in the housing stock for a long time, and on which it will therefore be in their financial interests to spend money. Why should they spend £20,000 on a house that they know they will lose in six years' time? District councils are not fools, and they will act accordingly.
The Minister assured me that there would be a readjustment of housing support grant for authorities that are still in housing support grant, or just out of it. Dundee district council lost all housing support grant in 1983. It has been many years since it received any such grant, and there will be no readjustment or compensation for it. Every time that it spends money, it will take into consideration how long the house is likely to remain in its ownership. The new clause contains a bias against tenants in a position to buy their houses, as opposed to those who have been in their houses for a long time.

Mr. Dalyell: On one matter I do not share the views expressed by some of my colleagues. I happen to think that extremely good advice from civil servants in the Scottish Office has been available to Scottish Ministers for a long time. I can speak only for myself, but whenever I have had occasion to approach civil servants I have always received courteous and helpful responses. I do not go along with what too many politicians are doing—casting a slur on the Civil Service. That, I feel, is quite unacceptable. To be able to criticise civil servants, it is necessary to be very specific with dates and facts.
In the light of that, I think that the Minister has probably received good advice on two matters, on which I should like to ask questions. Some of my hon. Friends, including Front Benchers, raised the issue of slow turnover. Necessarily, evidence is anecdotal, and I do not believe that any of us, without statistics, can form a very good idea of how bad the position has become. In parts of my constituency, however, it seems to have reached very sad proportions. In areas such as Queensferry, where there is a high demand for housing, it is extremely difficult for those who were born and bred there to obtain it. That is also true in other parts of the Linlithgow constituency. My first question is: has any statistical work been done recently in the Scottish Office to try to give an overall impression of whether turnover is markedly slower than it was before?
My second question is about modernisation. I think that my constituent, Robert Lee, of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and chairman of the West Lothian housing committee, is well known to Ministers. He prompts questions about the rate of modernisation that is possible even for authorities about which the Scottish Office cannot, in all conscience, complain. The anecdotal evidence is that, because of the financial inability to carry out modernisation that is desperately necessary, great injury is being done to the housing stock.
From the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) talked about windows. We all see windows rotting away in our constituencies. The excuse of "no money" is used far more often than it ever was before. Of course, there were always problems, but my anecdotal view is that the problems are becoming greater. What statistical evidence on modernisation problems and the stitch in time saving nine is available to the Minister?

6 pm

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I rise belatedly just to ask one or two questions which are more technical than anything else. I preface my remarks by saying that the list of amendments that the Government have tabled on Report, after the long and arduous Committee stage, will make it difficult for the House properly to digest what the Government are bringing forward.
Of course I understand that some of the amendments are concessions and, in so far as they are concessions, they are welcome. Some are for the purposes of clarification, but this highlights the claims that were made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that the consultation procedure that preceded this piece of legislation was inadequate in time and depth. We are seeing the fruits of that. It makes it difficult for hon. Members on both sides of the House to follow the implications of some parts of the Bill.
I am referring particularly to new clause 7 and the two related amendments. It is the first time that I have seen the Government amend the long title of a Bill on Report. Surely some standards must be sacred. If the Government are tackling new areas of legislation that are not envisaged in the original Long Title of the Bill, surely it is incumbent upon them to think again and bring forward a new measure. There will be further housing measures. The procedure of consultation on this aspect of the Bill, which was intimated to the Committee only in the latter stages, suggests that the local authorities, which will be left to pick up the pieces of this sort of change, have not been properly consulted.
Against that background, the first question that I want to ask the Minister is what consultations he has had recently with local authorities about the problems that moving to the new historic cost floor system of limiting discounts will have for them It is incumbent upon the House to consider carefully the Minister's answer to that question when forming its judgment on the new clause.
I assume that there is a typographical error in subsection (6B), because the word "different" is used twice in the phrase:
may make different different provision in relation to different cases".
Even I do not think that the parliamentary draftsmen would seek to pass that off as anything other than a typographical error. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
An earlier part of the clause uses the phrase:
Except where the Secretary of State so determines".
I have not had time to check this in its entirety, but I do not think that the equivalent provision in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, dealing with restriction of discounts, puts that phrase into operation. If that is the case, I shall be happy to be so reassured. However, if that is a new phrase that has crept into the legislation, what does it mean, and in what circumstances will it be used? What exceptions will the Secretary of State consider before he determines the content in the rest of the clause?
When looking at the new clause 7 provisions side by side with the provisions that they replace, the definition of the word "costs" is important, and we have heard little about that. I am not satisfied that there is legal clarity in terms of what is meant by "costs". Tenants were able to find out quite easily what the discount was, and the formula and calculation could be made and checked by tenants who were prospective purchasers. Using words such as "costs" in the body of the new clause will lead to many difficulties, not just for tenants who are prospective purchasers, but for the local authorities. What does "costs" mean, and where is the definition of it? How will that be decided by individual prospective purchasers when they try to take advantage of the new clause?
I keep making this point, and I risk being boring on the subject. In the new clause it seems that we are again using the negative procedure. When the Secretary of State brings forward statutory instruments that are subject to annulment, it is sensible on every possible occasion to have them subject to the affirmative procedure, not the negative procedure. The Minister may simply be slavishly following the provisions in the 1987 Act and he may be hiding behind that measure as a precedent. I have heard all that before, but I make the point again. If we are considering the provisions afresh, and if we are starting to introduce words


such as "costs" that have no legal definition, the orders should be subject to statutory scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.
I ask for clarification of the phrase—I referred to it earlier when I mentioned the typographical error —which states, inter alia:
may make different provision in relation to different cases or circumstances or different areas.
From memory, I think that the 1987 Act provisions talk about varying cases and varying circumstances in different areas. However, what exactly does that mean? Have there been any cases under the 1987 Act where different provisions have been made in different areas? What is that phrase intended to embrace in terms of the position on the ground?
Those are important questions. I would risk being boring and incurring the wrath of the House if I went on in a legal vein such as this. However, I simply make the point that I have given four examples of vagueness and difficulties that can be created and can creep into pieces of legislation that are as ill-digested as this clause.
The Government are wrong to seek to impose this sort of legislation on local authorities, and it makes it difficult for them to work out exactly what provisions they are to make for new and modernised housing stock. If the Minister wants to be even-handed to prospective purchasers, he should make sure that local authorities are indemnified financially for the costs that they will lose over a long period by having to pay the loan charges, and so on.
I am opposed to the clause, and if Opposition Front Bench Members seek to press it to a Division, I shall have great pleasure in supporting them.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I want to deal with some of the detailed points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is a highly qualified lawyer and he raised many technical problems. He worked hard in Committee on behalf of Age Concern and other bodies.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question about the clarification of the phrase relating to different provisions in different areas. That allows for the different time periods to be set for the cost floor in different parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the repetition of the word "different" was a printing error. It is, but that will be cleared up later. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Bill's long title. It is not unusual for a Bill's long title to be amended. I cannot readily give a precedent, but I am sure that there are many precedents I could cite if I had time to look them up.
The White Paper clearly stated that the outstanding debt was to be abolished. We considered a considerable number of representations very thoroughly. As I said earlier, we changed our policy as a result of those representations and that represents a compromise between the interests of local authorities and those of tenants.
Historic costs are total costs and therefore easy to calculate. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also referred to the negative statutory instrument procedure. That is a regular procedure and is used quite often.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a number of points on behalf of his constituents. He was correct to state that the Scottish Office has carried out research which has revealed that in the vast majority of

cases where tenants purchase their homes, they stay in the same houses that they purchased. There is no evidence of a marked change in the turnover. Obviously, research has taken place over many years.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow also referred to the rate of possible modernisation. West Lothian's allocation is £8 million on the housing revenue account. That is 6 per cent. higher than last year's allocation. The council must determine its own priorities within the framework of the available resources.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Scottish Office research reveal that there has been no marked increase in the rate of turnover? If so, that is a very odd conclusion.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will have to check upon that. The information that I gave a moment ago was correct: there has been no marked increase. However, I will check that. I said that there has been no evidence of marked change in the turnover. I will check that, and if there is any additional evidence I will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that, if there has been a reduction in the Scottish local authorities' housing stock of more than 100,000 since the scheme was initiated, there has been no change in the rate of turnover of re-lets in housing? The Minister must accept that in due course there will be a significant change.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I said that in the vast majority of cases, once the tenants became owners, they stayed in the same houses.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) referred to public expenditure in Scotland. Taking account of the increased allocations to local authorities announced yesterday, total capital provision for housing through public sector agencies in 1988–89 now amounts to £825 million. That is £44 million, or 5·6 per cent., up on the equivalent figure for 1987–88. I stress to Opposition Members including the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that the amount to be spent on housing next year will increase. I am glad to say that yesterday Dundee, like the other authorities, received a substantial additional allocation. Dundee received an extra allocation of £3,550,000.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister acknowledge that the money which he refers to as allocations is not grant from the Government to local authorities, but authority for local authorities to spend their own money?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The bulk of the money came from extra receipts. Estimates are made by the Scottish Office in co-operation with local authorities, and we take a cautious view of the receipts. The authorities can keep the additional receipts.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not all the receipts received from the sale of council houses go to the authority which sold the houses? The Scottish Office determines the priorities and gives the money to the area where it judges the priority is greatest. For example, Perth and Kinross district, which has a fine record of selling houses, has not had all the money which it has made from the sales.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I can confirm that allocations are made strictly on the basis of need throughout Scotland, in terms of the authorities with the most pressing housing problems.
With regard to resources, this year the Housing Corporation will receive about £158 million. That is a record figure, and well up on last year's allocation.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister said that more than an extra £3 million will be allocated to Dundee district council this year. Will he confirm that all that money comes from the receipts from the sale of council houses? Will he also confirm that it comes from the sale of council houses in Dundee?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I would not be able to confirm the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question without looking carefully at the figures. However, I can confirm that the money comes from receipts.
The hon. Member for East Lothian referred to the auditors. There will be no problem with the auditors, because the requirement to sell is a legal requirement. He also asked why the position is different in England. There always was a difference in this area, even before we introduced new clause 7. The cost floor in England refers back to 1974, and in Scotland the outstanding debt floor relates back to 1978. The difference has always existed. The system of housing finance is not the same in Scotland as the system prevailing in England.

Mr. Kirkwood: I want to revert to a reply which the Minister gave me earlier. I think that he said that the phrase
different provision in relation to different cases or circumstances or different areas
could mean that the time limit could be changed in different areas at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Is that correct?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman studies what I said in Hansard tomorrow he will see exactly what I said. I will check what I said. I am reasonably certain that it was absolutely accurate.
The hon. Member for East Lothian referred to the £35,000 house which was sold for £15,000 five years later, with a loss of £20,000. The chances are that the value of the house will have increased at the rate of 10 per cent. each year. It is reasonable to assume that that rate of increase would take the value of the house after five years to more than £55,000. The discounted price would be £22,000, not the £15,000 which was suggested. Therefore, the loss would be restricted.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister suggesting that it is Government policy that the value should increase by 10 per cent. a year?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is obviously a matter for the market and depends entirely on market circumstances. I cannot determine house prices. However, as a matter of practical realities, house prices tend to rise considerably, and it is fair to take that into account.
The constituency of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) offers a different example of housing problems. I understand that Angus district council is having to sell houses in Montrose at less than the construction price. However, that has little connection

with the rules applying now or in future in the new clause to the right-to-buy sales. The situation is a direct consequence of house prices in the area generally.
At the beginning of the month, Angus district council wrote to the Scottish Office seeking guidance on whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State might be prepared to make an order under section 62(7) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The council suggested that that should require the selling price of houses on the Caledonian Station development in Montrose to be sold at not less than the debt outstanding on those houses, even though the market price of the houses had fallen below the debt level.
At my request, the Department replied in a letter informing the council that my right hon. and learned Friend is unlikely to be willing to make such an order because we do not believe that it would be equitable to expect any tenant exercising the right to buy to pay more than the current market value of the property in question. I should emphasise that under the current rules, and those which will apply if the new clause is agreed, the tenant will have to pay the full market value without discount.

Mr. Welsh: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I believe that I have covered that point, and I want to get on.

Mr. Welsh: I want to refer to the general problem of councils paying out less than the outstanding debt and bearing that burden. If that happens, as I fear it will in general, the Minister said that the Government would recompense through the housing support grant system. As the Minister is aware, the minority of councils receive housing support grant now. If the Government's policy continues, no council will receive that grant. Will he give an undertaking that if this becomes a problem for councils, the Government will restore housing support grant to meet that problem?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not going that far. I am making it clear that in the context of this case it would not be fair or proper not to set a figure at the market value, which is what has been arranged. We have arrived at a compromise between the interests of local authorities and tenants. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

ABOLITION AND CAPITALISATION OF CERTAIN SUBSIDIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS

'.—(1) No subsidy or contribution shall be made under the following provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (the "superseded provisions")—

(a) section 200 (slum clearance subsidy);
(b) section 254 (contributions towards improvement grants, repairs grants and grants for fire escapes);
(c) section 255 (contributions for improvement of amenities);
(d) section 296 (contributions towards certain other expenses)

in respect of any expense or expenditure incurred by a local authority on or after 1st april 1989.

(2) No claim for subsidy or contribution under any superseded provision in respect of or towards any expense or expenditure incurred by a local authority before 1st April 1989 shall be entertained by the Secretary of State unless—

(a) it is received by him before 1st October 1989; and


(b) any information reasonably required by him in relation to any such claim is received by him within two months after the receipt by him of the claim.

(3) Where two or more periodic payments of a subsidy or contribution under a superseded provision would, apart from this subsection, fall to be made on or after 1st April 1989, these payments shall be capitalised and made as follows—

(a) if one or more earlier such payments have been made before that date, the Secretary of State shall, instead of making the remaining instalments, pay an amount equal to the appropriate percentage of the relevant capital amount;
(b) if no earlier such payment has been made before that date, the Secretary of State shall, instead of making any such payments, pay such amount as appears to him to be equal to the appropriate percentage of the relevant expenditure.

(4) In subsection (3) above—
the appropriate percentage", in relation to a relevant capital amount means the percentage specified in or under the superseded provision in relation to the subsidy or contribution to which the capital amount relates and, in relation to a subsidy or contribution, means the percentage specified in or under the superseded provision in relation to that subsidy or contribution;
the relevant capital amount", in relation to a subsidy or contribution, means the sum of—

(a) such amount as the Secretary of State considers would, on the date of his payment under subsection (3)(a) above, be payable by the local authority were they then to repay a loan, repayable over twenty years, taken out by them from the Public Works Loan Board to meet their expense or, as the case may be, expenditure in respect of or towards which the subsidy or contribution was made; and
(b) any other amount which he considers would be then payable on such repayment of that loan;

"relevant expenditure", in relation to a subsidy or contribution, means the expense or expenditure in respect of which the subsidy or contribution was made.

(5) Payment made under subsection (3) above shall be—

(a) applied in reduction or extinguishment of such debt (whether then payable or not) of the local authority as the Secretary of State thinks fit; or
(b) made to the local authority; or
(c) partly so applied and partly so made.

(6) Payments made to a local authority under subsection (5) above shall be applied by them in the repayment of such debt and in such a manner as the Secretary of State directs.

(7) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of section 254 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, subsection (4) of that section (obligation upon local authority to pay to the Secretary of State sums recovered by them in consequence of breach of conditions of improvement grant or by way of voluntary repayment of such grant) shall continue to have effect in relation to expense incurred under that section by a local authority prior to 1st April 1989, being expense in respect of which contributions were made under that section.

(8) After paragraph 1 of Schedule 16 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (which, amongst other things, requires a local authority to carry to the credit of its slum clearance revenue account any slum clearance subsidy payable to them for that year) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
1A. — Paragraph 1(b) above is subject to section [Abolition and capitalisation of certain subsidies and grants] of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 (abolition and capitalisation of, amongst others, slum clearance subsidy).".'.— [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 103.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new clause will abolish a number of specific Exchequer subsidies and contributions with effect from 1 April 1989, which will be replaced by Exchequer support through the revenue support grant system. The principle of the clause has been agreed with and is accepted by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
First, the clause terminates specific Exchequer contributions to expenditure incurred by local authorities on housing improvement and other grants with effect from 1 April 1989. The clause also deals with what is to happen to the future payments to which we are committed for up to 20 years and which result from past awards of these grants and the debt repayments to which they have given rise. Finally, it deals with what is to happen to expenditure incurred by a local authority before 1 April 1989, in respect of which no periodic payment has been made by that date.
To meet the wishes of COSLA, the clause is drafted in such a way as to enable the Secretary of State to buy out the Government's obligations by capitalising the amount of future payments which would be due to a local authority. The amount payable is to be paid by the Secretary of State to redeem outstanding debt with the Public Works Loan Board, where that exists. But the clause is sufficiently flexible to enable special arrangements to be made for Orkney islands council and Ross and Cromarty district council, which have a total debt to the PWLB of less than the expected capitalised sum. It also enables the amount to be paid by the Secretary of State to include any sum which a local authority might be obliged to pay for the early repayment of loans.
I should make it clear that the new clause will not at all affect the present arrangements for local authorities giving improvement and other grants to indviduals. Only the way in which the Government fund these grants will be changed under this clause.

Mr. Home Robertson: I can confirm that the local authorities have no objection to the new clause. They only express the rather optimistic hope that the Secretary of State will exercise his discretion under the new clause reasonably.

Mr. Kirkwood: Let me raise as part of the principle of capitalisation some of the issues that we discussed in Committee. I refer, in particular, to the capitalisation of the amenity charges that are levied by the Scottish Special Housing Association on tenants who are owner-occupiers of former SSHA-tenanted stock. I sought to raise the matter in Committee and it is relevant to the abolition of capitalisation of certain subsidies and contributions contained in new clause 8.
I hope that the Minister will not rule out the fact that capitalisation can take place on the amenity charges, which would allow Scottish Homes—as it will become—to enter into an agreement with local authorities to capitalise the charges so that the local authority receives a sensible amount of money which will enable it to maintain the amenity of the common grounds that are currently maintained by the SSHA by levying charges on the residents who were former tenants and are now owner-occupiers. The matter was raised directly in new clause 15. Unfortunately, it was not selected, but I am sure that the Minister will see its relevance to new clause 8.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the hon. Gentleman. He


raised the matter in Committee and he is aware that there have been discussions with Midlothian district council and the SSHA, and that we have found a way forward. Obviously, we shall be glad if a similar way forward can be found for his council in the discussions that it is now having with the SSHA. We hope that they come to fruition in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

SCOTTISH HOUSE CONDITION SURVEY

'The Secretary of State shall, upon coming into force of this Act and every five years thereafter, conduct a Scottish house condition survey in order to establish the current condition of the fabric of local authority, housing association and privately owned housing stock in Scotland; to identify property which is below the tolerable standard; and to assess the likely future requirement to repair and refurbish those homes.
(2) The Secretary of State shall present to Parliament the results of each Scottish house condition survey within six months of completion of each survey.
(3) In consultation with local authorities the Secretary of State shall calculate and provide such funds as are necessary to effect all repairs to public sector houses as have been identified as necessary by any Scottish house condition survey.
(4) The Secretary of State shall have regard to the house condition survey in determining the provision of incentives for the improvement or repair of private sector housing:.— [Mr Home Robertson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 2 — Scottish housing needs survey—
`The Secretary of State shall, upon the coming into force of this Act and every five years thereafter, conduct a survey of Scottish housing needs in order to establish the number of individuals and or families in Scotland who are homeless or who are housed in inadequate or inappropriate homes and he shall take steps to house them adequately and appropriately.'.
New clause 14—Homeless persons annual return—
'The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with local authorities, Scottish Homes and any other relevant housing agencies, make an annual return to Parliament showing:

(a) the number of applicants under the Homeless Persons provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987;
(b) the number of successful applicants under the above-mentioned provisions
(c) the number of successful applicants under the above-mentioned provisions who were subsequently found suitable accommodation.'.

Amendment No. 126, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
'(h) establishing a programme with local authorities to share responsibility for dealing with applications received under the Homeless Persons provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.'

Mr. Home Robertson: New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State for Scotland to conduct a house condition survey and provide for remedial action to deal with any problems identified in that survey for the public and private housing sectors in Scotland.
New clause 2, which we are also debating, would require the Secretary of State for Scotland to conduct a

survey of housing needs, with particular reference to homelessness, every five years. It would also impose on the Secretary of State a duty to take steps to deal with the problems that would be identified. We are also debating new clause 14 and amendment No. 126 in the name of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which also deal with homelessness.
The Bill is described as a housing Bill, but it makes no reference to or provision for the most serious underlying problems of housing in Scotland. It is simply a doctrinaire measure to undermine the functions of elected local authorities in Scotland, to destroy the rights of tenants and to promote the interests of private landlords. The new clauses are a serious attempt by the Labour party to persuade the House of Commons to incorporate in the Bill a recognition of the condition of Scotland's housing stock and housing needs.
At present, the Bill includes a list of seven general functions and 19 specific powers for the new quango that the Government propose to set up in part I—Scottish Homes—but there is no reference to a duty to survey the condition of Scottish housing or the housing needs of the Scottish people.
The Minister should be aware of the problem, because I remember being a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs at the same time as he was. That was in the good old days when there was a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. We looked at the problems of dampness and other conditions of housing in Scotland, and the consensus was that there was a case for establishing a house condition survey in Scotland. However, we are still waiting for something like that to be carried out.
Let me start with housing needs. Surely the right to decent, secure housing must be one of the most fundamental human rights to be recognised in any civilised nation. However, as we know to our cost, an intolerable number of Scots are being denied that basic human right today. The number of Scots who are becoming homeless each year has risen by over 50 per cent. since the Government came to power.
The official Scottish Office figure for homelessness for 1987 is 24,196. That was the number of applications accepted by local authorities. However, we understand from Shelter that the real figure may be in excess of 30,000 because a number of local authorities allocate houses to people who may become homeless before they fulfil all the criteria provided for by the Act.
In addition, we know from statistics furnished by COSLA that 200,000 Scots are stuck on waiting lists waiting for rented housing in Scotland. Scottish Members come face to face with that problem every time we open our mail and conduct surgeries in our constituencies. I fear that, because the Government have so few elected Members from constituencies in Scotland, they may not be genuinely aware of the depth of human misery being experienced by so many people in our nation.
There are 1,250,000 Scots living in overcrowded accommodation—one quarter of Scotland's population. That is significantly worse than the comparable figures for England and Wales. Indeed, overcrowding is such an inherent problem that the Government have seen fit to devise a tax on overcrowding. Because so many people cannot obtain homes of their own, they cannot become ratepayers. They have to stay in shared accommodation. The Government are evidently so appalled by the fact that those unfortunate people cannot pay their local taxes


directly because they are denied the opportunity to become householders, that they have devised a poll tax, which is a tax on overcrowding and bad housing conditions. That is the depth to which the Government are prepared to descend.
The Government's failure or refusal to tackle or recognise the housing crisis that is afflicting people in Scotland is nothing less than a national scandal. The Bill is designed to make things worse by promoting high rents and insecurity for tenants, and it is a cruel insult to thousands of Scots who do not want or comprehend the policies of this minority Government in Scotland.
The Minister tells us that under the legislation there will be an upsurge in the building of new houses to let by the private sector. He should listen to the private sector. He should read the evidence of the Grieve report in Glasgow, which makes it abundantly clear that it is unlikely that the private sector will be able to respond to the Government's challenge.
6.30 pm
The Government should be encouraging local authorities to provide for housing need in the way that they best understand. It would be helpful if the Bill contained some reference to a housing needs survey, which would at least recognise the existence of the mounting tragedy of housing need in Scotland.
I shall move on to the case for a house condition survey. It is important to put it on record that the Scottish Office is alone among Government Departments responsible for housing in the United Kingdom in refusing to conduct a proper house condition survey. There is a house condition survey in England and Wales, but the Government steadfastly and resolutely refuse to conduct such a survey in Scotland. The Scottish Office administration evidently prefers to remain in ignorance of housing conditions in Scotland. It is rather like the three wise monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil. However, Ministers in the Scottish Office appear to be evil in regard to people in Scotland.
On the basis of incomplete returns from local authorities, based on information given to councils rather than on any active survey, the Government are sticking to the fatuous assertion that there are only 55,000 houses in Scotland below the tolerable standard. We know that that figure is inaccurate. We had a long debate on the subject in Committee, but the Minister is determined to continue the daft pretence that there are only 55,000 homes below the tolerable standard in Scotland.
We are indebted to Glasgow district council, which conducted a scientific survey of housing standards in that city. It identified 44,500 homes as being below the tolerable standard in the city of Glasgow alone. That leaves only 10,500 in the rest of Scotland. If we then look at the figures that the Government like to quote from the returns from local authorities, we discover that a further 4,180 of the houses below the tolerable standard are in the district of Argyll and Bute.
If we take that district out of the calculation, it appears that in the rest of the nation of Scotland there are only 6,320 homes below the tolerable standard. That is obviously nonsense. The Minister simply wants to conceal the fact that there are many more sub-standard houses in Scotland.
During an interesting debate on the subject in Committee, it became all too clear that the Minister

preferred not to know about the grim picture of housing conditions in Scotland. Not only is ignorance bliss for the Scottish Office; it appears to be official Government policy.
If there was time, I could offer the House a long and disturbing list of estimated figures produced by COSLA and by voluntary agencies such as Shelter, indicating that there are probably 500,000 damp houses in Scotland and that there are probably 250,000 council houses in need of major repairs or refurbishment. I invite the Government to face their responsibilities and conduct a survey so that we can evolve proper policies to deal with the underlying problems of housing in Scotland.
The Minister saw the evidence with his own eyes when he was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in 1983. The Grieve report put before the Government more devastating evidence about the situation in Glasgow. There is a serious problem affecting housing in Scotland. There is a desperate need for investment to improve the standard of housing in Scotland and provide for the needs of people who are homeless or living in overcrowded conditions. Why do the Government not get on with the job of identifying the facts so that we can have a practical debate about housing to deal with the problems?

Mr. Bill Walker: It is important that we should understand the difference between activity and action. I cannot say whether the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is right in saying that there are 500,000 damp houses in Scotland, because I do not know. I was a member of the Select Committee that conducted the inquiry into dampness and it was clear that at the beginning of the inquiry local authorities were claiming that there was no problem. It was only as the inquiry developed that local authorities began to accept that there was a problem. At the beginning of the inquiry, local authorities were not prepared to accept that there was a problem, and in some instances it seem that they were oblivious to any problem. Local authorities have been responsible for housing problems for a long time.
I am not convinced about going through the motions of activity rather than action. I believe that the Opposition's response to the statement earlier this afternoon showed that they are still more interested in activity than action. This afternoon represented action; the proposal represents activity.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that local authorities would not admit there was a problem at the beginning of the Select Committee inquiry. Will he substantiate that claim and name the authorities that would not admit that there was a problem?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Member may be interested to know that one of those local authorities is Glasgow. It is all clear in the Select Committee report. I know that other members of the Select Committee are present. Indeed, some of the Labour Members on the Select Committee were horrified at what it found. Officials to whom we spoke during the initial stages of the inquiry were trying to tell us that the problem was not of the scale that we discovered it to be. I make that observation only because it seemed that the local authorities, which have had responsibility for many decades, were unaware of the condition of their properties.
The survey that the hon. Member for East Lothian proposes in the new clause would not change anything. That is why it would be activity rather than action. The problem requires the kind of action that was taken earlier this afternoon—selecting specific areas and dealing with them in a way that will resolve the problem. We should be united about how we deal with that.
I find it offensive that the hon. Member for East Lothian should think that he knows more about the problems of council housing than Conservative Members. I find it equally offensive that he should talk about overcrowding when some Conservative Members have first-hand experience of overcrowding and know what it means to be one of eight children living in a two-roomed house. That is overcrowding. I could give him more details, but we do not solve these problems by hurling insults at each other. However, I found that abusive tonight and during the debate in Committee. We should be concerned about finding solutions to real problems.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment.
The Government acknowledge that there are real problems. They are changing what was done in the past because it did not work. That is why new ways of tackling the problem were announced in the statement this afternoon. The Opposition should be welcoming such proposals, but, again, they were girning and greeting in a way to which we have grown accustomed. The solution to the problems will be found in using resources in the most effective way and by involving local people. That is what the Government are doing.
I suggest that one of the reasons why county councils' coffers are so devoid of funds is that many decades of artificially low rents have deprived them of millions of pounds which they would have got from the public purse. Housing support in all its various forms, including housing benefit, has been available for many decades, but a low-rents policy artificially depresses the rent value and stops a council receiving public support in the form of housing benefit and the other forms of housing support that existed before housing benefit came into being. That deprives the housing coffers.
It is a deliberate policy, followed largely by Labour-controlled authorities, which starve themselves of funds that could be used to maintain their stock in a much more habitable condition. That is another indictment of housing management. The Bill will create much better management for national housing resources. The Government should reject the clauses. They are activity, not action.

Mr. Kirkwood: I rise to speak to new clause 14 and amendment No. 126 that stand in my name. I subscribe entirely to the argument deployed by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) about the housing needs survey and the house condition survey, both of which are extremely important. However, I shall confine my remarks to homelessness.
There is no consensus about the scale of homelessness, largely due to disagreement about how the problem should be measured. New clause 14 is a very neutral and anodyne attempt to remedy that problem. The Government regard as homeless only those people who satisfy official statutory

criteria that are established by the homeless persons provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The Government argue that there was a decrease last year in the number of homeless people, but the figures are still one third higher than they were when they came into office. The Government figures available to me show that in 1985–86 the number of officially homeless persons was 10,906 and that in 1986–87 that number fell to 9,868.
Pressure groups and local authorities have criticised those criteria; they are suspect and far too restrictive. They exclude many genuinely homeless people from the official statistics, such as married couples living with parents or parents-in-law. Shelter's regular survey of people who apply to be considered as homeless and who are therefore granted priority status for housing allocation purposes shows a steeply worsening trend. Shelter's figures show that, in 1985–86, 26,329 people applied to be classed as homeless and that in 1986–87 there were 31,218 applications. That controverts the figures that were given to me in a written answer on Monday 14 March. The Government gave information about those who had applied to be classed as homeless in each local authority from 1978–79, and it is set out in a table in the Official Report.
The purpose of new clause 14 is to establish a formal mechanism to allow the true extent of homelessness to become known. Under new clause 14, the number of people who consider themselves homeless and who apply to be granted homeless status by the local authority—such figures are now collected by Shelter but are not kept centrally by the Scottish Office — would be set out. Furthermore, those who succeeded in being classed as homeless—those are the only figures that are now acknowledged by the Scottish Office—would be set out. Finally, those who were found accommodation after having been classed as homeless would be set out and would thereby become known to Parliament.
The nature of the success or otherwise of the Government's housing policy for the homeless would then be much clearer. At the moment, the homelessness problem is substantially understated, whether deliberately or otherwise. Poor statistics hamper attempts to assess the extent of the problem in Scotland. I ask, therefore, that new clause 14 should be considered in that light.
6.45 pm
Amendment No. 126 seeks to establish a programme with local authorities to share responsibility for dealing with applications received under the homeless persons provisions of the 1987 Act. There is no obligation on the new housing agency, Scottish Homes, to concern itself with homelessness. The amendment seeks to remedy that omission. Scottish Homes will probably be the largest landlord in Scotland. The amendment seeks to oblige the new agency to share the responsibility for homelessness.
Local authorities have an exclusive statutory duty to attend to that problem under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Scottish Homes will be the largest landlord in Scotland and local authorities will be deprived of both resources and stock to tackle the problem of homelessness if many of their tenants transfer their homes to other landlords, as the Government clearly hope and intend. In those circumstances, it would be ludicrous if Scottish Homes did not share the responsibility for housing the homeless.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I intervene, I hope briefly, to support new clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made an excellent case for it. Although the case is overwhelming, the Government still resist it.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I remember a debate when the Conservative party were in opposition. On that occasion, the Minister was on the same side as me. He called for more action from the then Labour Government to establish a house condition survey. The Minister has the power to do that now, but he sits on his backside and does nothing.

Mr. Clarke: I accepted my hon. Friend's intervention because I knew that the Minister was listening carefully. He is a very good-natured Minister. He can show great courtesy, which puts to shame most of his colleagues on the Treasury Bench. Therefore, I live in great hope that on this occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) will not be disappointed. The argument is extremely powerful.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has been consistent on each occasion when he has spoken on this matter. The Select Committee on which my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, the hon. Member for Tayside, North and I served took evidence that suggested that Scotland should adopt the practice that has been followed in England and Wales for some time. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North believes that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and many other organisations that gave evidence to the Select Committee were wrong on that point, I should like him to put forward an argument that would persuade me that the money that has been spent in England and Wales has been spent unwisely.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North made a splendid point in support of the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian when he said that, as he recalled the evidence that was given to the Select Committee, some of the councils were "oblivious" of their conditions. If that is so, it is all the more reason for having a national survey.

Mr. Bill Walker: The point that I was making was that what the Select Committee achieved by having its inquiry was to make councils aware of the situation. That was one of the really positive effects of that inquiry, which I believe was the Select Committee functioning and operating as it should, which sadly was not always the case. It was a very good inquiry, which did a lot of good and made councils aware of a situation which before the inquiry they were at least suggesting did not exist.

Mr. Clarke: I find myself again with the hon. Gentleman, in that I agree that it was a good inquiry. It was so good that it made a recommendation to the Government, and the Government tossed it out. Had they accepted even the proposal that we should have a pilot scheme, as recommended by the Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for East Lothian might not have found it necessary to move this new clause today.
If there are so many variations in the approach of one local authority as against another—I submit that there are — clearly we ought to be trying to establish a national standard in an attempt to identify the national problems that exist in Scotland and the local implications of those problems.
I will give an indication of the absolute confusion that reigns on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), on 8 July 1987, as recorded in Hansard, column 184, put a question about dwellings requiring major repair in 1986 and received a reply from the Secretary of State for Scotland. I will not go into great detail, because an enormous table was provided, but it only adds to the confusion. For example, taking districts neighbouring Monklands district, I find that in Falkirk ther are 14,708 such houses; in Motherwell there are 4,600 and in Strathkelvin there are 1,119.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on very important problems that Strathkelvin experiences in terms of capital, where it was found that the sale of council houses was not the prize that it was offered as being. The same table suggests that in Monklands the score is nil. I thought that I was reading about Albion Rovers! I cannot accept, based on my own local knowledge and on the number of constituents who come to me, that the situation in Monklands can be represented by nil. I do not believe it.
I do not necessarily criticise the Secretary of State, or the council, because Monklands district council's officials, in responding to the request from the Scottish Office to give this information, may have found their own method of making the calculation, but I believe that, given the problems of dampness which the Committee identified and of which we are all aware, given the problems of overcrowding, which we are discussing today, and given the problem of homelessness, it really is quite unacceptable that we should have information which is nowhere near that available to our hon. Friends who represent English and Welsh constituencies.
This was the plea even of the Institute of Environmental Health Officers. They did not want, within given local authorities, to take it upon themselves to say what standards should be set and that they therefore should make a judgment in terms of inspection and the efficiency of their own authority. They were hoping that there would be national standards and national provision of information. The small amount of money that the English and Welsh experience has cost—over £1 million, as I understand it, in each case—is a great deal less than the £800 million that COSLA quite rightly demands as necessary to invest in our housing stock. But in the absence of a survey, we shall keep getting the kind of confused reply to which I have referred.
I end as I began, by explaining that I find it quite astonishing that the Government are being so stubborn. The Secretary of State referred to COSLA, which clearly would support the new clause suggested by my hon. Friend, but the Secretary of State is very selective. Last night, during the exchange on the poll tax, it was said that there was not a single question at COSLA, and that somehow or other left the Secretary of State feeling that he had COSLA's support.
Whether or not the right hon. and learned Gentleman is selective, the fact is that COSLA, based on the kind of experience for which there is no substitute—that of its own councillors and housing committees dealing day after day with the problems that we are addressing—strongly takes the view that we are making a meal of this in Parliament by not taking our positive decision. When we do so, I hope that we shall do so in terms of my hon. Friend's new clause.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: These new clauses seek information about and clarification of the reality of Scottish housing conditions and Scottish housing needs and to find out the truth about homelessness nationwide. I should have thought that they would be welcomed by all Members. The solution to any major problem must be preceded by an analysis if it is to be made effectively and efficiently. Housing is no different. It is important to delineate the problem, identify the exact extent and nature of it, and then to gather the necessary resources and apply them in a sensitive way in meeting the needs of people.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that Angus district council does not already know how many dark houses it has, how many people it has on its waiting list and what the problems are in Angus?

Mr. Welsh: I should be happy to tell the House what a good housing authority Angus is, with a zero rent increase this year and record spending on repairs, maintenance and the modernisation of houses. Angus district council would do exactly what I am suggesting — find out the extent of the problem and apply the resources sensitively to meet the needs of the people—but I am talking about housing survey for the whole of Scotland.
In Scottish housing we have not even reached that simple first base, and it has taken quite a deal of time for the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to figure that out. There is no accurate statement of the extent of Scottish rural and urban housing problems. The reality is not known. The remaining problems can be guessed at from the statistics applied by COSLA and organisations such as Shelter, but enough is known to encourage further and more detailed study of the reality of Scottish housing needs and Scotland's housing stock. Carry out that study and a very important first step will have been taken towards providing a solution to our major national housing problems.
The Government maintain that local housing authorities already have sufficient information about the condition of housing stock and, in particular, public housing stock. The local authorities disagree, and I am inclined to believe them. Even the Government do not claim that there is enough accurate information about the condition of privately owned houses. The estimates that exist cannot easily be reconciled. For example, the 1981 census recorded 23,400 houses as lacking an indoor toilet, while local authority returns for the same year suggested that the figure might be as high as 70,000.
With such huge disparities between existing sources of information, surely it is essential that an objective assessment of housing conditions be carried out. A crucial feeling about all existing information is that it fails to provide any assessment of the general level of disrepair in either the public or the private sector.
In July 1985 an inquiry into British housing, chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh, published a report making considerable use of the English and Welsh house condition surveys. It stated:
No comparable information is available for Scotland; we think it should be.
With an attitude like that, would that the Duke of Edinburgh, rather than a lord, was the Scottish Housing Minister.
In November 1985, the Department of the Environment conducted an inquiry into the condition of

local authority housing stock in England, which produced an assessment of the structural condition of English council houses and of factors such as poor heating systems, condensation and insulation, asbestos, security, vandalism and environmental problems, and window and door replacement, so that information is available for England. Why should it not be available and put to use in Scotland? Surely such information is the only basis for any sensible housing policy.
7 pm
The means of conducting such a housing survey exists through Scottish local organisations such as COSLA. It has produced a housing information survey kit, adaptable to the needs of local authorities. The means of delivering such a survey are already in place, thanks to local authority initiatives, so it would be easy for the Government to carry out this necessary housing survey if they had the will. It must be national, giving the national picture of what faces the Scottish population. I am under no illusion that such a survey would be the be-all and end-all, but it would give us a snapshot of the reality, and as such it would be an important first step towards examining the problems and getting in the resources to solve them.
Parliamentary answers tell me that England has had four such surveys and that yet another is planned for 1991. If the Minister's English colleagues believe that such a survey is essential and invested more than £1·5 million on the last house condition survey, why is it not possible for Scotland to have one, given our much worse housing? Three housing surveys have been conducted in Northern Ireland, along with a mini-survey last year — why nothing for Scotland?
It cannot be for financial reasons, because the Government have told me that it would cost only about £5 million for a Scottish survey. Surely such a small amount is a worthy investment, given that it will form the basis from which to tackle Scotland's housing problem. Where better to use a unified Scottish housing agency than as a basis for such a survey? Would the Minister allow Scottish Homes to carry out the survey, given the small amount involved? If not, why not?
I know the answer to my questions : such a survey would give an exact picture of the atrocious conditions in which so many of our fellow Scots live, and the Government have no intention of meeting the Scottish housing needs or supplying the resources with which to tackle them. A housing needs and conditions survey should be undertaken, along with a survey of homelessness, as a first step in seriously dealing with Scottish housing problems, but I guess that the Government will once again duck their responsibility and Scotland will be left out on a limb—with no survey, no basic information, and no resources with which to tackle our housing problems.

Mr. George Galloway: Nothing bears better testimony to the utter cynicism of the Conservative party about Scottish housing than the vast expanses of green on the Conservative benches. I thought for a moment that they were about to grow vaster, but I see that the hon. Membr for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is not leaving us. We see precisely two Scottish Conservative Members, yet when the Division Bell rings no doubt their English compatriots will flood in to vote through this attack on Scottish housing, just as they did—

Mr. Bill Walker: There are only 11 Scottish Labour Members present.

Mr. Galloway: The hon. Gentleman has proved that he has at least 10 fingers, but there are, as I say, only two Scottish Conservative Members present to deal with this vital issue. The Minister gets paid to sit where he is and would lose his job if he did not, and the hon. Member for Tayside, North is the only Conservative Member not much in demand as a dining companion, so he can sit here at 7.3 pm.
My point was a serious one. When the Division Bells ring, English Conservatives will flood through the doors, never having seen a Scottish home or a damp house in Scotland, to vote through the legislation which has nothing to do with an attempt to make the critical problems of Scottish housing better and everything to do with lining the pockets of their friends, who they hope they will be able to conjure into the private rented sector when the legislation is passed.
The Government's cynicism is almost Orwellian. The title of the Bill, Housing (Scotland), and Scottish Homes, which has nothing to do with Scotland and was never voted for by the Scottish people, are evidence of that. Indeed, the concept was decisively rejected by them at the general election. So the Bill's title is an abuse of language and its contents are utterly alien to the Scottish housing scene and have nothing to do with houses, as the next 48 hours will show — and as the 80 hours in Committee showed.
Nothing shows the Government's cynicism more than their refusal to accept the new clause, which would oblige Scottish Homes to have a national house condition survey. How could anyone go into an enterprise as vast as tackling the problems of Scottish housing without a survey to show how serious the problem was? Much was made in Committee, in the White paper and on Second Reading, of the similarity between Scottish Homes and the Scottish Development Agency. Does anyone seriously believe that the SDA would undertake a vast and important strategic enterprise such as running Scottish housing without first conducting a survey to see what the problems were? Scottish Homes wil be whistling in the dark —deliberately and wilfully so—if it sets about its business without ascertaining the extent of the problem.
In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) attempted to flatter the Minister into giving way on this issue, but I could have saved him his breath. We tried that many times in Committee, by reminding the Minister of his previous support for the demand for a national survey. We flattered him by telling him he was the most civilised and gentlemanly of the Tory Ministers—but to no avail.
Many Conservative Members have given their reasons for resisting our demand. Some of them care about Scottish housing—I include the Minister in this category —but are afraid of such a survey because of the results it would yield. After being studied, the survey would lead to a demand by people of all political persuasions in Scotland for resources, money and energy, which the Thatcherite Government in Scotland are not prepared to put into Scottish housing, the Scottish economy or any other aspect of Scottish life.
Other Conservative Members do not want the survey because they do not give a damn. Some Members on the Committee were not even Scottish; others were Scottish

but lived in castles; others were so dry in their Thatcherite philosophy that they almost thought it was a crime that people should depend on the public sector for housing in the first place. So if their houses were damp, their roofs leaked or the close in which they lived had not been decorated for goodness knows how many years, that was their own fault. If they would only pull themselves up by their boot straps, their problems, according to these Conservative Members, could be solved.
A house condition survey would illustrate the fact that Governments and local authorities of all political colours labour under misconceptions about the critical problems of Scottish housing. Certainly the Government seriously underestimate the scale of those problems.
Let us examine the issue of sub-tolerable conditions. We had great fun discussing that in Committee. The Secretary of State thought that there was a different number of sub-tolerable houses in Scotland from the number given by his junior Minister. The Minister gave two different figures within 20 minutes about the number of such houses in Scotland. It all depends on one's definition of tolerable. What is being forced on Scottish tenants as tolerable would certainly not be tolerable for many of us. If there was such a survey, we would find that the number of houses involved was dramatically different.
It has been said that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. I shall use the example of Glasgow, because of the shortage of time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the Government, there are only 11,000 houses in the city of Glasgow that are below tolerable standards. That would be a joke if it were not so tragic. Glasgow district council, which has, I dare say, every reason to know better than the Government—shame though that may be on the Government — estimates that 44,000 houses are below tolerable standards. That figure is reached after applying a moderate definition of "tolerable". My experience of just 10 months as a Glasgow Member of Parliament is that a hell of a lot of the sub-tolerable houses in Glasgow must be in my constituency, but, when I look around at the constituencies of some of my hon. Friends in Glasgow, I know that that cannot be true.
Such a survey might also throw light on an issue that is perhaps not so politically contentious, but it is one that I raised in Committee and want to raise again on Report. It relates to obsolete and sub-tolerable wiring and electrical equipment. Members on both sides have correctly made all sorts of noises of concern and consolation when fire tragedies have occurred in many parts of the country. Yet how many of those fires were caused because innumerable houses, perhaps millions of them, in Britain as a whole have ineffective, inefficient or obsolete wiring?
I shall give, if I may, only the Glasgow statistics. According to Glasgow district council, 45,000 houses in Scotland have obsolete or inadequate electrical wiring, or equipment, and heating. That is a scandal which Scottish Homes would do well to address, but the organisation cannot address the problem unless it knows it exists, and it cannot know that it exists until it carries out a survey to ascertain it.
The great problem of dampness in Scottish housing is even greater than homelessness, in my opinion. The Scottish Opposition, which is 50 strong, happen to know this because many, if not all, of us represent areas where dampness is endemic. Because there are so few Conservative Members, who in many cases represent


constituencies where dampness is much less of a problem, I do them the credit of saying that they may not appreciate its seriousness.
Every week people come to my surgery with children's toys, with coats, or with photographs that demonstrate dampness on an obscene scale. Children are living in houses and sleeping in bedrooms that are giving them bronchial problems and asthma and making them ill. The Government do not even care enought to conduct a national survey of dampness in housing so that they at least know the extent of the problem, even if they do not make any attempt seriously to redress it.
I hope that the Minister will obey his instincts and agree to set up a national house condition survey. I know that he will not, for he would be sacked if he did.

Mr. John McFall: I shall be brief, but I wish to speak on the important issue of a house condition survey. I put it to the Minister that the lack of a survey points to the Government's indifference to the value of the public debate on the issue during the past nine months.
The Government had several objectives in the White Paper. They wanted increased home ownership, diversification of choice and tenureship and a major revamping of the peripheral housing estates. The word that was missing from those objectives was "quality". I suggest that quality of housing was absent because the Government are not interested in the quality of homes in Scotland. If the Government were the least bit interested, they would have included a house condition survey in the White Paper, as the new clause demands.
What are we asking for? Hon. Members have said that Scotland wants the same as England and Wales. How could the Minister possibly undertake a major revamping of Scottish housing, which was mentioned in the White Paper and the consultative document, without thoroughly knowing the problem and having detailed statistics? The least that the Government could do is to set a target, and set it in concrete, so that we know where we are going. The Government have failed to do that because they are not interested in housing in Scotland. That is the only message that could go out from the House.
The statistics have been gone over in the past few months and I will not repeat them. Experts have estimated that more than £6 billion is required for modernisation and repairs. It is up to the Government to knock down that figure and to come back and prove that that money is not needed. I contend that they cannot do it because they have not investigated the matter sufficiently.
Homelessness has been mentioned. In my surgeries, like those of other hon. Members, the majority of cases concern housing, notwithstanding the fact that local district councils do their best. Indeed, my district council has undertaken its own housing condition survey and submitted it to the Scottish Office. It requires £110 million over five years. The Scottish Office says that the council can have £20 million over five years. The Scottish Office did not request details about what was wrong with the housing in my constituency. Every utterance of the Government must be rejected because they will not undertake any basic analysis of the problem. Until they do that, we cannot accept their word.

Mr. Canavan: I rise to support my hon. Friends briefly and, first, to congratulate them on tabling the new clause.
It is a poor reflection on Conservative Members that only one Scottish Tory Back Bencher is in the Chamber to listen to this very important debate. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that Opposition Members have put forward a very strong case for a survey of housing conditions and needs.
I hope that the Minister might remember his days as a humble Back Bencher when he made radical statements supporting the needs for the type of survey that is outlined in new clause 1. I remember the hon. Gentleman making great emotional speeches about the sufferings of his council house tenants in West Pilton — the Minister agrees with me—which was in his constituency at that time, although it is no longer. West Pilton is an area of Edinburgh which the Minister claimed at that time was suffering from multiple deprivation. He rightly fought a good fight on behalf of the council house tenants of West Pilton, in the House, in the Scottish Grand Committee and in Scottish Standing Committees dealing with housing legislation.
The Minister was in opposition then and he could afford to stand up against the then Government and promise the earth to his constituents once he got into office. The hon. Gentleman now has responsibility for housing in Scotland. I know that the appointment was subject to criticism and that unkind remarks were made about him. People talked about his lack of experience in such matters as council housing and spoke about his being one of the last remnants of the Scottish aristocracy. I do not want to repeat those unkind remarks because I know that, despite his aristocratic background, he is a sincere and honest man.
The Minister is one of the more honourable or at least one of the least dishonourable of the rascals in the Scottish Office ministerial team. Certainly when we compare him with Ministers who have responsibility for such matters as health, education, sport and the arts, we see that, despite his obvious faults and failings, he is a man of some integrity. I am sure that when he replies to the debate he will bear in mind the valid points made by my hon. Friends. I know that he will not be so partisan as to say that merely because one of his own Back Benchers made a contribution, he will, out of party political prejudice, ignore the needs of Scottish council tenants and other tenants. The new clause refers not just to public sector tenants but to those in the private sector.
New clause 1 says:
The Secretary of State shall, upon coming into force of this Act and every five years thereafter, conduct a Scottish house condition survey".
The five-year period is very important. Some people may think that such a survey should be conducted every 10 years while others may think that housing is such a fast-moving, dynamic matter that there should be a survey every two or three years. My hon. Friends have struck a good balance, because five years is the maximum lifetime of a Parliament so that we could expect a housing survey in the lifetime of each Parliament. Five years is just one year longer than the maximum lifetime of a housing authority, if we confine the meaning of housing authority to directly elected district councils.
That means that, within the lifetime of each Parliament and probably within the lifetime of each local authority,


between elections, we can expect a housing survey to take place. My hon. Friends have got the timing just about right.
What is the purpose of the survey? The new clause says that it is
to establish the current condition of the fabric of local authority, housing association and privately owned housing stock".
Not only the fabric of houses should be surveyed; we should also survey the social conditions that arise because of the state of the fabric. However, I do not want to quibble over that. If the fabric is faulty, that usually leads to miserable social conditions, and action must be taken to remedy such faults. Obviously the problem must first be identified and that is why the need for a survey of the fabric is absolutely essential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), spoke about the problem of dampness in houses in his constituency. He spoke in moving and graphic terms about the poor people who come to his surgery week after week, month after month. I certainly sympathise with my hon. Friend. I am sure that all hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies, and particularly Labour Members who represent deprived inner-city areas and other areas in which poor housing conditions still exist, can testify to the great need to eradicate the problems of dampness.
Less than a decade ago the Minister was speaking in the House and in Committee about the problems of dampness in houses in his constituency. I supported him at that time and all that I want him to do now is to support me. There is no point in saying that local authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association, the future Scottish Homes and private landlords should each deal with the problems of dampness in their own houses. The Minister knows that local authorities often lack the resources even for a comprehensive survey, never mind the remedial action necessary to deal with the problems once they have been diagnosed.
Dampness can be a severe problem, causing not just social but severe medical problems. As my hon. Friends have said, mothers sometimes come along with children to our surgeries. They become almost like doctors' surgeries when children are coughing and spluttering because of dampness in the house. We can hear the child wheezing.
It is impossible to visit every home in one's constituency and to conduct some kind of personal survey, but I have visited many homes because some parents have pleaded with me to come and see the conditions in which they and their families have to live. Sometimes I have had the time to go to view these conditions and it is a heart-rending experience to see such problems in a house that may be less than a decade old. There is something wrong with the architecture or the building or the heating of such houses, or possibly all three factors come into it, when severe problems of dampness or condensation arise. Houses of that age could not by any stretch of the imagination be called old.
If we had a national survey such as the one outlined in the new clause, at least we would be able to identify the scope of the problem. I hope that we could also identify the root causes and deal with them. I hope that, if the Minister accepts the need for a statutory survey of the sort that my hon. Friends have in mind, he will bear in mind that it is not good enough simply to look at the fabric of

the houses and carry out a superficial diagnosis. It is essential to ask the tenants about the heating system, for example.
Local authorities often say that a tenant is using the wrong kind of heating system for his house and that it is contrary to the advice that he has been given by the council. Such tenants often come to me and ask, "How can I possibly heat my house using gas, electricity or whatever system is recommended by the council? Here is my weekly income. I simply cannot afford anything other than a paraffin heater." As we all know, a paraffin heater is disastrous not just in terms of the fire risk, especially when there are young children around who might coup the heater, but because it causes severe condensation.
If a survey such as that outlined in the new clause were conducted throughout Scotland, we should find that many poor people who are eking out a living on supplementary benefit are being forced, because of economic circumstances, to use paraffin heaters.
In view of the Minister's experience in West Pilton, perhaps he will tell us whether there are still areas in his constituency in which such problems prevail. Perhaps he will tell us what he intends to do to alleviate the situation for his constituents and for other people. If he says that he does not have as many council house tenants as he used to have, as a result of the boundary changes, I remind him that the new clause also refers to privately owned housing stock in Scotland.
Tory Members are very good at pointing the finger at the inadequacies of the council housing stock. Ironically, those inadequacies are often caused by the Government's failure to give housing authorities sufficient resources to improve or expand their housing stock. However, the problem is not confined to local authority, Scottish Special Housing Association or other housing association property. The problem cuts across the divide between the public and private sectors.
7.30 pm
Unfortunately, even in relatively new houses in the private sector, we find problems of dampness. That may be due to the economic circumstances of the owner-occupiers. They may take on a mortgage to buy a house when both the husband and wife are earning. Then perhaps a family comes along and the woman stops working. The man is then made redundant, so the family finds itself struggling to keep up the mortgage payments. There may be a tendency in such circumstances to cut down on heating costs, so a cycle of dampness and damage to the fabric of the house is established. Perhaps the problem does not exist to the same extent in the private sector, but it certainly exists in much of the older private sector housing stock and in some newer private sector housing.
New clause 1 states that one of the objects of the survey is
to identify property which is below the tolerable standard".
That is an excellent idea. It is about time that the Government started to look at houses in Scotland that still fall below the tolerable standard and to consider ways of improving the standard. What may have been considered tolerable 10 or 20 years ago may now be considered intolerable. We should never be complacent about housing standards. We should always be considering ways of improving them.
Perhaps the Minister will give us the most up-to-date figures of the number of houses in both the public and private sectors which fall below the tolerable standard. I refer to the statutory definition of the tolerable standard which appears in the Scottish Development Department's circulars and in statutory instruments.
It is a terrible indictment of the Government that they have contributed in some respects to a lowering rather than a raising of standards. For example, the building company Barratt indulged in some disgraceful lobbying to try to influence hon. Members in an attempt to lower the building regulations standards. As a result, some people in Scotland live in what has been described as hen-hut accommodation and do not have sufficient room to move around in the house.
The Tory Government connived with Barratt to lower those standards, despite the fact that building control officers, representing local authorities throughout Scotland and with no political axe to grind, were adamantly opposed to the lowering of those standards.
I should be interested to know whether the financial link between Barratt and the Tory party had anything to do with the Government's lowering of those standards. Some people in Barratt accommodation are living in property that would previously have been described as intolerable or at least below the standards set down by the building regulations. That is a bad record for the Government. They have flouted professional advice. I do not know what advice they received from their officials at the Scottish Development Department. I have always believed that most civil servants, with a few exceptions, are incorruptible, and I am sure that they would not be over-influenced by Barratt.
The lobbying appears to have been done at the highest levels of the Conservative party. Barratt obtained the ministerial ear and had the regulations changed. That was a disgraceful episode in the history of housing in Scotland. I shall be interested to know which Tory party members, Tory Members of Parliament and, possibly, Ministers have received hospitality from Barratt and invitations to their time-sharing flats in the Highlands. It is a shoddy business when a private sector company is able to influence the Government unduly in the formulation of Government regulations.
I did not originally intend to raise that matter, but it came to mind when I saw the statement in new clause 1 about tolerable standards. Part of the object of new clause 1 is
to assess the likely future requirement to repair and refurbish those homes.
In other words, it is not sufficient to conduct a survey and find out what is wrong. We must also obtain an estimate of the resources required to carry out the necessary repairs, refurbishment, modernisation and, in some cases, demolition and rebuilding. Many mistakes have been made by architects and builders.
Sometimes it is not old houses that need to be demolished. I remember canvassing at a by-election in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart). We visited a high block of flats which, I believe, was opened by the Queen not very long ago. I have no doubt that those flats would come within the scope of new clause 1. Only a few people were living

in them even at that time. Those flats should be demolished and, as I understand it, that is in the process of being done.
Perhaps the Minister will tell me what, if anything, has been done about a booklet that I came across in the Library and which was produced by the last Labour Government when Hugh Brown was Minister with responsibility for housing at the Scottish Office. An excellent Green Paper was produced in about 1976 and, whether or not one agreed with some of its tentative proposals, it certainly contained a wealth of statistics on housing conditions in Scotland. It was obvious that at least elements of a survey had been carried out. Will the Minister consider upgrading the good factual information which was contained in that excellent Green Paper?
In 1977 the Scottish Development Department published "Guidance for Local Authorities—Assessing Housing Needs". I do not recall the Tory Government saying when they won the 1979 general election that that document's approach was no longer Government policy or that it was null and void just because there had been a change of Government. In case the Minister does not have that report, its reference number is ISBN 0114914826.
The report was the result of much hard work by a committee chaired by Mr. C. J. Watson, BA in geography from the centre for urban and regional studies of the university of Birmingham. Most of the others on the committee seemed to have a Scottish background. The report contained more than 100 pages. Can the Minister tell us what has happened in the decade since it was published? Do the Government still hold by the report, or have they updated it? What are the Government's criteria for conducting a survey along the lines set out in new clause 1?
Subsection (2) of new clause 1 states:
The Secretary of State shall present to Parliament the results of each Scottish house condition survey".
That should go without saying. Unfortunately, with this Government, who do not believe in open democracy, we must spell out the details for them. I congratulate my hon. Friends on doing so in the new clause. We do not want such a survey to lie on the shelves collecting dust in New St. Andrew's house. It should be presented to Parliament and be accessible to all Members.
I suggest that the Minister should consider breaking down such surveys, not just by local authority area but by constituency, so that we can all see the state of housing in our areas. I am sure that that would equip us better to ask constructive and well-researched questions in Scottish Question Time. I am sure that the Minister would welcome such questions based on these surveys rather than have hon. Members ask him to provide the information that should be available in them.
Obviously, house condition surveys must be open to parliamentary inspection. I go further and say that such surveys should be debated. Members from down south have been invading debates on Scottish affairs on the Floor of the House and if some hon. Members take exception to too much time being taken up on Scottish affairs, I suggest that we debate the house condition surveys in the Scottish Grand Committee. Of course, that Committee has its limitations because it normally meets for only two and a half hours and, by the time the Front Benchers have had their shilling's worth, there is only enough time for Back Benchers to have a pennyworth each. That means that only two or three Opposition Back


Benchers can speak. There should be open-ended debate, without a guillotine, either on the Floor of the House or in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I doubt whether this is the appropriate moment to discuss that matter. The hon. Member should address his remarks more directly to the new clause.

Mr. Canavan: I am referring to subsection (2) of the new clause, which states:
The Secretary of State shall present to Parliament the results of each Scottish house condition survey within six months of completion of each survey.
There are various ways of submitting measures to Parliament. They can be submitted to Parliament as a whole or can be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the great respect I have for the occupants of the Chair and, if it is your wish, I shall proceed to subsection (3) of the new clause — it is important as I am sure you will agree—which states:
the Secretary of State shall calculate and provide such funds as are necessary to effect all repairs to public sector houses as have been identified as necessary by any Scottish house condition survey.
We should not let the Government off the hook. It is a matter not only of identifying the problem but of attempting to solve it. Some local authorities have put great efforts into carrying out a local survey of housing needs and conditions, but they are not able to do all that they would like to remedy the problem, because the Government will not give them the funds to do so.
My local authority has had a drastic cut in its capital allocation since the Government came to power and has received not a penny in housing support grant in recent years. If Falkirk district council has not had a penny of housing support grant and has suffered a capital allocation cut as well, what hope do council tenants have that repairs will be carried out? Under the new clause, a survey will have to be conducted and local authorities will have to be given enough money to do something about the problems that would be discovered by such a survey.
My hon. Friends have restricted subsection (3) to cover public sector houses, but in subsection (4) they extend the new clause to cover
the improvement or repair of private sector housing.
Certain statutory minimum requirements have been laid down in terms of private sector housing improvement grants. I should like the Minister to clarify a point. If a house falls below the "tolerable standard", the person who lives in it—whether as an owner-occupier or as a tenant — or the owner is entitled to an improvement grant. This is a mandatory grant, but there are other types of improvement grant that are discretionary. It is up to the local authority to decide what percentage of grant to give.
My former constituency contained not only part of Falkirk district housing athority but several other housing authorities. As I recall, the practice seemed to vary from one local authority to another. I wonder whether there is perhaps a case for increasing the amount of statutory grant—provided, that is, that local authorities are given adequate resources to implement a raising of the standards.
I have no doubt that some of my constituents' problems would be identified in a national survey as outlined in new clause 1. At present, they go along to the local housing

authority to ask for an improvement grant. They are told, "All right. We have to give you an improvement grant to bring your house up to tolerable standards. But you want standards slightly above tolerable standards and we shall not give you a grant for that element." That is a pity. Surely we should not think simply in terms of the minimum standard. I have always said that there should be nothing but the best for the working classes. I am sure that the Minister, as a good aristrocrat, will agree with me that we should be bettering standards all the time rather than contenting ourselves with minimum standards.
Is not there a case for tightening the definition of tolerable standards and giving local authorities more money to make home improvement grants to bring houses up to those improved tolerable standards, as well as allowing them to exercise more discretion in making grants to people who want to improve above tolerable standards?
New clause 2 would also provide for a survey, but it refers to needs as well as housing conditions. That is very important, too. Perhaps the Minister does not hold centrally the figures for the number of people on waiting lists. In the past when we have tabled questions — for example, asking the Minister whether he will give us the number of people on housing waiting lists in each local authority area — we have received one of those word-processor replies saying, "Ha, ha. This information is not held centrally." Frankly, that is not good enough. If we had a survey as outlined in new clause 2, we should have access to the information required.
New clause 2 deals with the identification of housing needs. I suppose that we would need some kind of questionnaire; it would be no use writing to a local authority and asking, "What are the housing needs in your area?" A lot of groundwork would have to be done and people would need to be asked what their needs and wishes were. Like the Minister, I recognise that many people want to buy rather than rent their houses. Unlike the Minister, however, I do not think that the Government are entitled to cut to a minimum—perhaps even reduce to zero —the assistance that they give local authorities to replace the housing stock that they are forcing them to sell off. Perhaps the Government think that they will get cheap popularity by opening a bargain basement to sell council houses at huge discounts, but future generations may be very hostile to them if, as a result of their one-off decision in the late 1970s and 1980s, there is a vast reduction in the amount of public sector housing at a reasonable rent.
I have always believed that the Government should try to get the balance right. If in a survey under new clause 2 someone expresses a preference for buying a house rather than renting, in the public or private sector, that is fair enough; let us give that person help. We should help first-time home buyers such as young couples, in particular. However, we should never try to minimise the importance of the job that local authorities have to do in continuing and expanding public sector letting. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
New clause 14 is a Liberal proposal and, as usual, the Liberals are not here. I shall speak in support of the new clause because it seems very reasonable. I do not want to be sectarian and say that just because it is a Liberal proposal Labour Members should not support it. It refers to the homeless persons provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The House will recall that the original homeless persons' legislation emerged from the Lib-Lab


pact. I was not a supporter of the Lib-Lab pact, but I was certainly a supporter of better provision for homeless persons.
What has happened since the Act was passed? This Tory Government have refused to give local authorities adequate resources to fulfil their obligations under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the homeless persons provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. I am sure that many other hon. Members have heard constituents who have been on the waiting list for a considerable time—perhaps for years — complain not only that they cannot get a house but that someone else has been jumping the queue under the homeless persons provisions. That has caused a lot of aggro and the resulting antipathy has been misdirected against local councillors, although the fault lies fairly and squarely with the Government and their lack of an effective housing policy.
Let us examine the alleged queue-jumping. Often, the local authority is looking at a particular case and judging it under the terms of the homeless persons legislation which obliges it to give priority to a homeless person or family. Almost inevitably, those who are already on the waiting list—perhaps initially with more points than the homeless person—feel that they are being penalised and that they will therefore have to wait much longer for the house that should be theirs as of right. This Government do not consider housing to be a basic human right, and the operation of the homeless persons legislation therefore presents increasing difficulties.
There may be nothing wrong with the legislation itself. I am sure that most hon. Members agree that those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness should be given statutory protection. However, that statutory protection will cause difficulties unless local authorities are given adequate resources to deal more effectively with those on the ordinary waiting list rather than what is sometimes referred to as the homeless persons' list.
8 pm
I see a need for new clause 14. Indeed, as I said earlier, the Liberal, Stephen Ross who used to represent the Isle of Man—[Interruption]—no, the Isle of Wight—was instrumental in getting the homeless persons legislation onto the statute book. I believe that the Isle of Wight is now represented by a Tory.
This is a Liberal new clause, but I support it and I am sure that if he were here, Stephen Ross would support it too, although like many things about the Liberal party the clause is a bit pussy-footed. It states:
The Secretary of State shall … make an annual return
but that does not mean anything. Where are the Liberal Members? They are not even here to answer the point.
If the Secretary of State makes an annual return, we can guess what will happen to it. It will gather dust on the shelves of New St. Andrew's house. It is important that some action is taken on that annual return. If we had formulated the new clause—if it had been formulated by the Labour party rather than being a damp squib of a Liberal amendment—we would have beefed it up and stated that more resources should be provided. Of course, the reason why we did not bother to do that is because it can be adequately covered in new clause 1.
To get back to where I started, new clause 1(3) is very important as it relates to the provision of funds, as is new clause 2, the other Labour new clause, which states:

The Secretary of State shall … take steps to house the"—
individuals or families—
adequately and appropriately".
Although I am not a lawyer, I understand that in a Bill "shall" means "must". I understand that lawyers, like Liberals, are different people and say "shall" as if it was something futuristic and predetermined, but we know that that is not always so. Instead of saying "must", it states "shall". It is a bit of an abuse of the English language, and it is legal jargon, but so be it.
Finally, amendment No. 126 is also a Liberal amendment and establishes a programme for local authorities to share responsibility for dealing with applications received under the homeless persons provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. I am not sure what "sharing responsibility" means, because a local authority has that statutory responsibility at present. I am sure that that means that most of them are not trying to shirk that statutory responsibility, despite the difficulties in taking it on. All that is required is not so much a sharing of responsibility as the Government giving the local authorities sufficient resources to fulfil that responsibility.
We have had an interesting debate on the three new clauses and one amendment. I apologise to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) because, as a result of urgent commitments and problems in my constituency, I missed his speech, but I do not need to read Hansard tomorrow because I could virtually repeat his speech verbatim, as I have heard his housing speech on many previous occasions. With the exception of the hon. Member, every hon. Member who has spoken has been constructively critical of Government policy.
I repeat that the Under-Secretary has at least some integrity left, unlike some of the other Ministers in the Scottish Office. Therefore, I hope that he will respond constructively, in the same constructive spirit with which the Government policy has been criticised during the debate. I very much look forward to what he has to say.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am very glad to respond to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and to tell him that yesterday I was able to make an additional allocation to Falkirk of £2 million under the housing revenue account of which he was perhaps —[Interruption.] Well, although the hon. Gentleman is questioning it, that is certainly in the documents before me.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about below tolerable standards— —[Interruption.] I am speaking to the hon. Gentleman. I wish to answer his speech, which lasted for an hour. The number of below tolerable houses in Scotland has been reduced from 121,000 in 1979 to 55,000. Those are the most recent figures that I can give. They come from the local authorities themselves.
The handbook to which the hon. Gentleman referred, "Guidance for Local Authorities — Assessing Housing Needs", was published nearly 10 years ago. It shows that even the previous Labour Government acknowledged the need for housing surveys, which I believe are very necessary.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is not in his place, but I would advise him that it is our commitment, in the White Paper, to improve the supply and quality of housing. As I have said, the statistics that we use come from the local authorities. There is a dilemma, because a worthwhile survey would cost at least


£5 million—probably slightly more—and, quite frankly, that sum would modernise 1,500 council houses or provide over 2,000 repair grants. Therefore, I did not feel that it could be justified, for a variety of reasons.
New clause 1 seeks to impose on central Government responsibilities that are properly those of local authorities. The front-line responsibility for considering the requirements of an area rests with the district or islands council. The authorities have ample powers to carry out surveys of their areas to establish housing conditions. With this in mind, my Department is undertaking a research project on the conduct of local surveys with support from the Institute of housing, the Rowntree Trust, the Scottish Special Housing Association and a number of local authorities. The pilot survey in Nithsdale district has now been completed and we hope to issue guidance to local authorities this summer which will assist them to derive the maximum benefit from any survey work which they may comtemplate.
As I said during the Standing Committee's consideration of the Bill, we are keeping the possibility of a national house condition survey under review. We are not, as yet, however, convinced of its merits. In particular, it is unlikely that a national survey would yield useful results at below district level unless the sample size was large, and consequently the survey would he expensive. As I have already said, the cost of a national survey—which we estimate to be just over £5 million—would have to come out of the total resources available for housing. Frankly, I did not feel that I would be justified in reducing the increase that has just been made in the allocations to local authorities in Scotland in order to spend more than £5 million for a housing condition survey.
Incidentally, I advise the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that Glasgow's housing revenue capital allocation for next year, 1988–89, is now £88 million, which is 6 per cent. on the equivalent allocation for 1987–88. It received an additional £19·5 million yesterday.
My brief response to new clause 2 is that the Scottish Development Department gathers information about the level of homelessness from local authorities throughout the year on a case return basis. In any event, I cannot agree that it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to take action to provide housing directly. This is properly the responsibility of local authorities.
For much the same reasons, I do not believe that new clause 14 is acceptable. I can, of course, appreciate the difficulties and anxieties that occur when people are made homeless or are threatened with homelessness. Indeed, my Department is at present undertaking research into how authorities discharge their duties under the homelessness legislation. The aim of this research is to draw out, to document and in due course to disseminate examples of good practice. The more effectively and sensitively the legislation is applied, the more we can ensure that the distress that people face if they become homeless is kept to a minimum.
In addition to that research, the Scottish Development Department already collects statistical information from authorities through the year on a case-return basis to determine the extent of the homelessness problem. My Department also monitors the numbers of applications under the homeless persons legislation and the working of the Act generally. I do not believe that a formal requirement to consult relevant housing agencies and to

make an annual return to Parliament on the level of homelessness would in any way ease the very difficult problems that can arise. We need to build on the existing links between all the agencies involved and to promote improved housing management.
Finally, let me say a little about amendment No. 126. The current legislation places responsibility for helping homeless people, in my view correctly, on district and islands councils. It is right that councils must consider whether changes are required to their housing allocation policies, and whether they can make better use of their existing stock, in the light of their exercise of that responsibility.
The problem of homelessness is not simply one of the total accommodation available. Indeed, as I often argued in Committee, there are some 130,000 more houses than households in Scotland. Homelessness is also to an increasing extent a problem of mismatch — with, for example, much accommodation being in the form of family houses, but the trend now being the formation of smaller households.
If these difficult problems are to be solved, we need good housing management and close co-operation between local authorities and the agencies involved. I do not believe that it is sensible to impose on local authorities a statutory requirement to act in tandem with Scottish Homes and to share responsibility in dealing with homelessness applications. In my view, one body in each area should have a clear duty to take the lead in ensuring that the homeless are found accommodation.
The Government will certainly look to Scottish Homes to co-operate to the full with local authorities on all matters of mutual interest. In areas where Scottish Homes acts as a landlord, local authorities will of course consider whether houses owned by Scottish Homes are available to house those whom the local authority determines to be in need of accommodation under the homeless persons legislation. There is therefore room for sensible and constructive co-operation between local authorities and Scottish Homes in dealing with people who require that necessary assistance, but I do not believe that this cooperation would be encouraged or enhanced by the teens of the amendment.
I do not believe that the new clauses and the amendment are acceptable, and I ask the House to reject them.

Mr. Home Robertson: I wish that the Minister would stop spinning this yarn about housing capital allocations and suggesting that the Government are giving local authorities money to do the job. That sort of remark simply aggravates people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The Minister should come clean about what is going on.
As for all the mealy-mouthed stuff about homelessness, statistics and a mismatch between available and overcrowded houses, homelessness is not a matter of statistics or of mismatch. It is a personal disaster to those who are affected by it.
It has been made abundantly clear in the debate that there is an overwhelming case for proper surveys of housing needs and conditions in Scotland. How can there possibly be a proper investment planning process in Scotland, let alone a proper assessment of housing needs, in the absence of accurate information?
We do not have adequate housing for our people in Scotland. The Minister knows it, and the House knows it. What we need is a proper, planned programme of investment, and the basis of such a plan must be accurate information. The Minister keeps saying that they are thinking about it, that they might carry out a survey at some time, that they are still thinking about it. The legislation provides the opportunity to lay a duty on the Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with the Scottish housing crisis, and he cannot begin to do that without accurate information.
We are about to move to a vote. Let me remind English Members, who form the overwhelming majority in the House, that in their country there is a house condition survey so that there can be proper planning of housing investment. All that we are asking is for the same facility to be available to the people of Scotland. I urge my hon. Friends and, indeed, the whole House to support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 243.

Division No. 237]
[8.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Duffy, A. E. P.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Allen, Graham
Eadie, Alexander


Alton, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fearn, Ronald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Flynn, Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Foulkes, George


Blair, Tony
Fraser, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Galloway, George


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
George, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Buckley, George J.
Gordon, Mildred


Caborn, Richard
Graham, Thomas


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heffer, Eric S.


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Doug


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clay, Bob
Holland, Stuart


Clelland, David
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coleman, Donald
Howells, Geraint


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Crowther, Stan
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
John, Brynmor


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfedder, James


Dewar, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dixon, Don
Kirkwood, Archy


Doran, Frank
Lamond, James


Douglas, Dick
Leadbitter, Ted





Lewis, Terry
Quin, Ms Joyce


Litherland, Robert
Randall, Stuart


Livingstone, Ken
Redmond, Martin


Livsey, Richard
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Reid, Dr John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Richardson, Jo


Loyden, Eddie
Robertson, George


McAllion, John
Rogers, Allan


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum A.
Ruddock, Joan


McFall, John
Salmond, Alex


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Sedgemore, Brian


McLeish, Henry
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McTaggart, Bob
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marek, Dr John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Maxton, John
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meale, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Vaz, Keith


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wall, Pat


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wallace, James


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wareing, Robert N.


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Murphy, Paul
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Patchett, Terry



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mrs, Llin Golding and


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Frank Cook.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Chris


Allason, Rupert
Butterfill, John


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Atkinson, David
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dunn, Bob


Bellingham, Henry
Durant, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fallon, Michael


Benyon, W.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Sir Marcus


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gow, Ian


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowis, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gregory, Conal


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grylls, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Buck, Sir Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith






Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Hawkins, Christopher
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Neubert, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayward, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Heddle, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hill, James
Page, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Holt, Richard
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Price, Sir David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Raffan, Keith


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, John (Ravensboume)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irvine, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Irving, Charles
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jack, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Janman, Tim
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ryder, Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lang, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Latham, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Speller, Tony


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Squire, Robin


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lilley, Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sumberg, David


Maclean, David
Summerson, Hugo


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Madel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Major, Rt Hon John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Malins, Humfrey
Tracey, Richard


Mans, Keith
Tredinnick, David


Maples, John
Trippier, David


Marland, Paul
Trotter, Neville


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mates, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mellor, David
Walden, George


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'slde North)


Miller, Hal
Waller, Gary


Mills, Iain
Ward, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Watts, John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wells, Bowen


Moate, Roger
Wheeler, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Whitney, Ray





Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wilkinson, John



Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Noes


Wood, Timothy
Mr. David Lightbown and


Woodcock, Mike
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

DETERMINING A RENT BY RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

'— (1) A tenant may, at any time, irrespective of any existing rent agreement between himself and the landlord refer the rent of his home for assessment by a rent assessment committee and the committee shall determine the rent at which the committee consider that the house might reasonably be let to the individual tenant concerned.

(2) In making a determination under this section the committee shall have regard to:

(a) The amount of rent which the tenant can reasonably afford to pay
(b) The suitability of the house concerned to the requirements of the tenant and any members of his family.'.—[Mr. Home Robertson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 6—

Prohibition of premiums for assured tenancies—
'It shall be unlawful for any premium to be charged to a tenant for the creation of an assured tenancy, except that a deposit not exceeding one month's rent may be charged.'.

New clause 16—Application to rent officer by local authority—
In Part V of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, after section 46 there shall be inserted the following section:

"Application to Rent Officer by Local Authority.

46A. — (1) A local authority may apply to the rent officer for consideration of fair rent for any dwelling-house within their area for which a rent may be or has been registered under this Part of this Act.
(2) If on the application the rent officer is satisfied that the rent, or the highest rent, payable for the dwelling-house under any lease or agreement exceeds what in his opinion is a fair rent, he shall register a rent for the dwelling-house.
(3) The rent officer may under subsection (2) above take account of the rent payable under any lease or agreement whether or not that exceeds the recoverable rent and whether or not the lease or agreement has taken effect.
(4) Where a rent for a dwelling-house has been registered under this Part of this Act, no application under this section shall be entertained before the expiry of three years from the relevant date (as defined in section 46(5) of this Act) except on the ground that, since that date, there has been such a change in the condition of the dwelling-house (including the making of any improvement therein), the terms of the tenancy, the quantity, quality or condition of any furniture provided for use under the tenancy (excluding any deterioration in that furniture due to fair wear and tear) or any other circumstances taken into consideration when the rent was registered or confirmed as to make the registered rent no longer a fair rent.
(5) For the purposes of section 46(5) of this Act, a case where the rent officer does not register a rent on an application under this section shall not be treated as a confirmation of any rent already registered.".'.

Amendment No. 1, in page 15, line 16, leave out clause 25.

Mr. Home Robertson: This new clause enables the House to move on from its consideration of the needs for housing and the condition of housing in Scotland to the


question of the likely spectacular increase in rent levels that will be generated if the Government are successful in imposing the new system of so-called assured tenancies in a supposedly increasing private rented sector in Scotland. Frankly, we doubt whether there will be the spectacular increase in private renting on which the Government are evidently pinning their hopes. However, tenants who are enticed into that form of tenure could find themselves in serious difficulties, and the House should dwell on that for a moment.
The assured tenancy system is designed to promote the interests of private landlords and to undermine the rights of tenants in Scotland. Nowhere is that more evident than in rents. The concept of fair rents is being jettisoned by the Government in favour of the law of the jungle and a free market approach to rents in the private sector in Scotland. In that context, it is important to emphasise the fact that for the foreseeable future housing in Scotland is likely to be a seller's market, certainly in connection with rented housing. The drastic cutback in local authority new building and the continuing erosion of existing local authority stock is contributing to a slow-down in the turnover of local authority housing in Scotland, whatever the Minister may try to say on the subject. That means that waiting lists are getting longer and things are bound to get worse.
We know that there are already as many as 200,000 people stuck on housing waiting lists in Scotland. There may be some duplication in that figure, but that is the number of outstanding applications for houses being held by local authorities in Scotland at present. Another connected figure is the depressing and distressing statistic that 1·25 million people in Scotland are living in overcrowded accommodation.
In circumstances such as those, people are obviously desperate to obtain homes. Anybody is bound to be desperate for a house for himself and his family, and it is not surprising that some people take serious risks in order to secure a house. In that connection, I have noticed a disturbing increase in the number of mortgage defaults, and that is a symptom of the problem.
There must be a significant number of people who, finding themselves stuck for years on end on waiting lists for district council houses, recognise that one way out of that problem is to get a mortgage and buy a house. They look at the Barratt show houses and are taken in by the soft sell. They manage to secure a mortgage and move into a house. So far, so good. However, it takes only a minor change in circumstances, such as someone losing his job or becoming ill or any other change in a family, to mean that the household can no longer afford to keep up the mortgage repayments. People face the prospect of having their homes repossessed and as a result finding themselves homeless.
That is happening in Scotland today as a result of the Government's obsession with the promotion of owner-occupation. A significant number of people being allocated local authority houses under the homeless persons procedure at present come from the private sector because they are mortgage defaulters. Other people stuck on the local authority housing waiting lists see that as queue-jumping and that is causing considerable ill-feeling.
8.30 pm
Any landlord who can offer a house to let in most areas in Scotland will be able to depend on fierce competition to rent it. There will be a buoyant market for rents as prospective tenants try to outbid each other in the hope of obtaining a home for themselves and their families. That is the kind of market that the Government are trying to stoke up. One does not need to be terribly clever to understand the pressures that that will cause as people who cannot afford high rents find themselves facing high rents and other inducements as they try to secure housing for their families. That situation is wide open to abuse by unscrupulous landlords. It is shamefully irresponsible of the Government to undermine rent controls to the extent proposed in the legislation.
In passing, it is relevant to refer to the new restrictions on housing benefit which will come into effect next month. They will cause severe difficulties for people who depend on them as a source of cash to pay their rents. I am indebted to Edinburgh city council for making available the results of a survey that it carried out in the city of Edinburgh into the effects of the social security changes on housing benefit. I understand that nearly 2,000 claimants who currently receive housing benefit in Edinburgh will lose that completely. They will receive no housing benefit after the changes come into effect. In addition, another 17,000 claimants will see a significant reduction in the amount of benefit that they receive under the housing benefit system. In total there will be 19,000 losers under the new regime of housing benefit in Edinburgh alone. On average, each claimant will lose £6·42 a week. That gives us an idea of the kind of squeeze that will be imposed on people claiming housing benefit.
The city of Edinburgh will lose £6·8 million in housing benefit. No doubt there will be similar figures of loss in other cities of Scotland. People must be protected in those circumstances, and there is no sign of that protection in the housing benefit system or in this legislation. On the contrary, the Government are deliberately seeking to stoke up rents in Scotland.
New clause 5 would enable a tenant to refer the rent to the rent assessment committee, which would be able to consider all relevant circumstances in determining and enforcing a reasonable and affordable rent for the sake of the household and tenant concerned.
New clause 6 would deal with the likely abuse of the principle of key money or premiums whereby a landlord might require a payment from a prospective tenant to secure a lease. That is a fundamentally corrupt and unjust practice, which most of us hoped had been stamped out of the Scottish housing scene a long time ago. Inevitably, that practice would be encouraged under this pernicious new regime of so-called assured tenancies which the Government are heralding in the legislation. That practice should be outlawed, and we have tabled new clause 6 to give effect to that.
I am not surprised that the Minister is totally isolated and all alone on the Conservative Benches tonight. We have the spectacle of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland without a single Conservative Back Bencher in sight. The only other Member on the Government Bench is the indefatigable hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean), an Assistant Government Whip, who does not even represent a Scottish constituency. The Minister alone is facing the music for what he is doing to Scottish tenants.
I am not surprised that the Minister's hon. Friends are embarrassed by the legislation. I invite the Minister to put something on the record about the extent to which he envisages that rents in Scotland will rise as a result of the legislation. Is he prepared to do anything about that, or is he not in the least bit concerned about the hardship that the legislation will inevitably create for many tenants in Scotland?

Mr. Bruce Milian: I fully support all that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has said about new clauses 5 and 6. I want principally to refer to new clause 16, which is being considered with the other new clauses. New clause 16 stands in my name.
New clause 16 deals with a long-standing scandal of outrageous rents being levied by landlords on slum properties, many of which are in Glasgow. However, the problem is not restricted to Glasgow. The rents are typically imposed on tenants who are unemployed or otherwise receiving DHSS benefits. The scandalously high rents have therefore been paid straight from the public purse by the DHSS, sometimes direct to the slum landlord.
The scandal was exposed some years ago by the Glasgow Evening Times in relation to particular landlords in Glasgow, one of whom I shall refer to shortly. At that time some of my colleagues from Glasgow constituencies and I pressed the Government to take action to stop this outrageous behaviour, which was an imposition and hardship on the tenants because they were often subjected to harassment and intimidation. It was also an imposition on the public purse. As I have said, the money to pay for the rents came from the Government through the DHSS.
At the same time the Government refused to take any action, although the scandal was well documented. There was no excuse on the Government's part for saying that they did not realise the problem. Mr. Michael Ancram dealt with the problem from the Scottish Office at the time.
The Government refused to take action. They said that the tenants could always apply to the rent officers for a reduction in rents, but that was completely unrealistic, for several reasons. First, there was no financial incentive on the tenants to apply through the fair rent procedure, because they were not paying the rents. The rents were being paid by the DHSS. Incidentally, the rents charged for unemployed tenants were several times higher than those applied by the same landlords to tenants in similar slum properties who were not unemployed. The people receiving the worst rents had no financial incentive to apply to the rent officer for a fair rent, because, I repeat, they were not paying the rent. They were also vulnerable in other ways, and in many cases they were subjected to harassment and intimidation.
I produced a private Member's Bill in 1985 to do what new clause 16 would do if it was accepted by the House, as I hope it will be. My Bill would have given power to the local authority in those circumstances to apply to the rent officer. It did not take power out of the hands of the tenant, because none of his powers would be reduced. It gave additional power to the local authorities in those cases to apply to the rent officer for the establishment of a fair rent. The local authorities supported that. It granted to Scotland a provision that existed, and as far as I know still exists, in the corresponding rents legislation in England. However, the Government blocked the Bill,

despite the fact that there was a scandal that was costing the public purse considerable sums of money. That situation has been maintained to the present day.
I am glad to say that the most notorious landlord involved, a Mr. Barry Solomons, who was responsible for a company called Norman Properties, was eventually caught by the police. He had to be extradited from Florida, where he was living in considerable style on the backs of my unfortunate tenants and at the expense of the DHSS. He was prosecuted, and I am glad to say that just a fortnight or so ago he was convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
The verdict and trial vindicated everything that we had been saying right back to 1985, and, indeed, before. This was an outrageous abuse of the system. Reporting the sentence, the Glasgow Herald said:
Landlord Barry Solomons made a killing from needy tenants. He rented out slum flats to the penniless and jobless, and made thousands of pounds by fraud.
He did not only make that money by defrauding the tenants; he was also involved in false claims for mortgages and a number of other criminal activities, for all of which he has now been convicted and sentenced.
In sentencing Mr. Solomons, Lord Weir said:
I hope that lessons have been learned by those who disburse public funds for the benefit of people who cannot support themselves. This case has revealed remarkable gaps in the safeguarding of these funds.
That is precisely the point that we have made all along and was dealt with in the private Member's Bill that I introduced in 1985 that was blocked by the Government.
Belatedly, the Government have now noticed that such abuses are going on. However, they seek to deal with them by giving a new power to rent officers in clause 64. I am glad to see that a later amendment seeks to leave out clause 64. This clause gives rent officers powers to determine a rent lower than that being charged where housing benefit or rent allowance is being paid. It does not give powers to reduce the rent; it simply gives powers to reduce the amount of money that goes to the tenant to pay the rent.
In other words, the abuse has been dealt with, not by getting at the landlords who are responsible for the abuse and are making vast sums of money out of the public purse, but by penalising the tenants even further. Those tenants are either unemployed or on benefit, they are vulnerable and, I repeat, often subject to harassment and intimidation.
It is scandalous that the Government should be tackling the problem in that way when public money is involved. The Government are constantly lecturing local authorities about not squandering public funds. New clause 16 is, with adjustments, a copy of the equivalent English legislation and would give local authorities the power to step in in those circumstances and have a fair rent determined. This would mean that rents in such cases would be reduced to only a fraction of what they are at the moment. The position will get even worse with assured tenancies. The clause would protect the tenants and the public purse.
I repeat that it is a scandal that we do not already have such a provision in our legislation. It will be a scandal if the Bill is enacted with the powers contained in clause 64 and the Government fail to tackle the problem at its roots— the problem of unscrupulous and, in some cases, positively crooked landlords abusing and milking the system.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on these new clauses because they go to the heart of the Government's philosophy in producing the Bill— that is, not just to seek an expansion of private landlords, but to back up the worst type of exploitative aspects of private landlords that we have seen in our history in Scotland. The Bill is an extension of landlords' rights as against tenants' rights.
I should like to cite a number of examples to back up what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) has said. It is clear that the use of the rent assessment committees is a retrograde step. There is no doubt, from the evidence of Edinburgh, Glasgow and other towns and cities in Scotland that the rent assessment committees are far more harsh and impose far higher rents than the rent officers or, indeed, the local authorities or any objective observer would think to be fair.
8.45 pm
In Edinburgh, the advice of housing advice agencies, which are non-political, is that a tenant should not go to the rent assessment committee because it is likely that the rent will be increased to an even higher level than it was thought it would be set originally. Therefore, to use the rent assessment committee is a retrograde step, and it is better to stick with the present rent officer system. That would be consolidated by the Government's acceptance of the new clause this evening.
The crucial point is the ability of people on low incomes, or without independent incomes, to have their rent met via housing benefit. Another terrible aspect of the Bill is the fact that people who have brought up their children in houses with more than one bedroom—perhaps two or three bedrooms—will suddenly be faced, if the Government get their way this evening, with someone coming along and saying that their housing benefit will not cover that size of house because it is too large or, in the words of the Secretary of State, "too luxurious" for them. That is a retrograde step and will penalise many people in Edinburgh, Glasgow and other parts of Scotland.
The net impact will be to force people on modest and low incomes, who have their housing benefit restricted by the Government's agents, to dip further into their low incomes to preserve the homes that they have. It is outrageous that the Bill should seek to impose and implement that.
The Government know that the reason why housing benefit, and, indeed, the DHSS social security budget, has rocketed is nothing to do with the fact that the Government have increased the incomes of people on supplementary or housing benefit, but everything to do with the fact that the Government have driven millions of people into poverty and made them dependent on housing and social security benefits. The way to address that problem is to provide a climate for getting people back to work, not to throw them on the dole and then penalise them for that—[Interruption.] I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who is making comments from a sedentary position, but I do not think that they are worth paying attention to.
It is vital that we drive out the worst type of exploitative landlords, and that is what our new clause seeks to do. It is vital that we do not encourage them, but that is what the Bill does. We must make sure that we do not go back to the Rachmanism of the 1960s, or, indeed, do anything

to consolidate the position which my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan said exists today in Scotland and the United Kingdom where private landlords, who have thrived under the Government for eight years, can not only exploit their tenants, but, in many cases, get away with it. There is no doubt that the sort of prosecutions about which we have been hearing are rare and too few and far between.
What we need to do, and what we can do by accepting new clause 16, is to ensure that the powers of local authorities to control landlords and drive out the bad ones are consolidated. The Government need to back up local authorities in driving out private landlords of the worst type, but to protect good and responsible landlords of whom there are a fair number. The problem is that good landlords find it hard to compete with bad landlords. They find it hard to provide good conditions for tenants, to carry out repairs and to levy fair rents when they know that bad landlords can exploit the system to make sure that the weakest and most vulnerable groups in our society are exploited to the full.
We need the Government to provide some determination to ensure that bad landlords are driven out and that local authorities are provided with the resources, the funds and the staff to monitor landlords so that those who provide good services are consolidated. Sadly, the Bill contains precious little to achieve that aim.

Mr. Frank Doran: I support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). In Committee, it became evident that the Government had not put a lot of thought into the Bill. Their guiding philosophy was that, by freeing private landlords and thereby removing various benefits which tenants presently enjoy under the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, more housing would come on to the market and the Scottish housing problem, including homelessness and damp houses, would thereby be resolved. As the Committee progressed, it became clear that that was a fallacy.
The new clauses deal with rent control and the removal from tenants of their present right of access to the rent assessment committee. In Committee, I managed to enumerate a large number of rights that tenants will lose. Tenants will lose the right to a written lease; they will lose the right to attend meetings of local authorities or to send a delegation to that local authority if they are local authority tenants; local authority tenants will lose the right to buy if the Government have their way; they will lose the right to the phasing of rent and to protected or secure tenancies. Tacit relocation, an ancient legal document, was virtually written off in Committee. Tenants will lose protection against eviction; and the right of succession.
In regard to rent control, a tenant has the right to go to the rent assessment committee, if he or she regards the rent as unfair. If the Bill is enacted, the process of determination of rent will be in the hands of the landlord. The landlord will be able to send a notice to a tenant on one occasion only that he requires an increase in rent. There will be no question of a fair rent; it will simply be an increase in rent.
It has to be stated as loudly as possible that the Bill is a considerable diminution in the rights of tenants. What incentive will there be for a tenant to move from an existing landlord if all those rights are removed? On the


question of rent, my hon. Friends have already made the point about the housing benefit system and its impact on housing. In Scotland, we are reaching a crazy position.
In Committee, I put it firmly to the Minister that the rent assessment officer would be required to do two distinct jobs for the same tenant. In column 1191, I asked the Minister a straight question:
It could be read from what the Minister has said that a rent officer may, by applying the criteria in section 48 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 determine a rent for a particular property, but that he could, thereafter, for the purposes of the housing benefit regulations, be required to determine a different rent. Is it possible that two different rental figures could be provided by the same person? From what the Minister says, the criteria will be different.
The Minister's reply was blunt and stark. He simply replied:
The answer is yes." —[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 1 March 1988; c. 1191.]
That is a crazy situation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) pointed out, it will impact more seriously on the most vulnerable and poorest sections of society—on those who depend on housing benefit to pay their rent.
There is a prospect of a gap opening between what the rent officer, wearing one hat, thinks is a fair rent for the property, and, wearing another hat as the agent of the Government in determining a fair rent for housing benefit purposes, determining another rent. In the middle will be tenants living on unemployment benefit, invalid benefit, pensions and supplementary benefit who will have to find the difference. Tenants will find not only that their social security supplementary benefit payments are being reduced in real terms, but that more of that benefit will be clawed away through measures such as those in the Bill.
It is important to bear in mind just how substantial are the payments from the public purse to the private sector. A huge subsidy of something like £5·4 billion a year is paid in housing benefit. Not all of that goes to the private sector, but £600 million a year is paid in Scotland. Those are huge figures. Not only do we subsidise private landlords to a huge extent, but there is no real benefit to the tenant because the majority of houses in the private sector are at the lower end of the market. They are the least modernised houses in the worst areas, and the tenants are the most exploited.
Finally, the Secretary of State made a statement today on urban Scotland. The document is entitled "New Life for Urban Scotland." He repeated some of the specious claims that he had made during the debate on Second Reading and in Committee. He said that the housing objectives are encouraging greater individual responsibility for and control over the conditions in which people live. I do not see how the Government can live up to that claim given the number of rights being taken away from tenants, the impositions being placed on tenants and the whole philosophy in which the power base is shifted to the private landlord and the further exploitation of the most vulnerable people in society.

Mr. Dalyell: I strongly agree with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). It is a pity that the private Member's legislation to which he referred did not reach the statute book.
I wish to ask the Minister one question. In east Scotland, house prices have rocketed in the past 12 months. Clearly this is either the reason, the excuse, or both, for raising rents. My question is rather simple. What

work has gone on in the Scottish Office about the likely rise in rents? Before introducing the Bill, the Scottish Office must surely have made some rough estimate about the likely effects. Can the House of Commons have the results of any work that has been done?

Mr. Dick Douglas: The Under-Secretary of State knows that there are some Ministry of Defence houses in my constituency and that there is a great deal of pressure to push up the rents of those houses. The local authority ought to be able to acquire those houses, which it cannot do now, or they ought to come under a new form of Scottish housing authority. The Under-Secretary has some Ministry of Defence houses in his constituency and he knows that there is a problem.
These homes are occupied by old people, many of whom are on supplementary benefit or other forms of social security. It is unfair that the rents of a large number of people who have served their nation well should be pushed up. I speak in particular of the village of Crombie. I hope that the Minister will refer to that problem.

9 pm

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home-Robertson) asked by how much rents will rise. It is impossible to say. The present system has distorted the market, to the detriment, we believe, of tenants' interests. The rent increase will be different in different areas. I expect that in some areas property rents will not rise. Because of the drop in the oil price, market levels in the north-east will be very different from elsewhere in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked what studies the Government had made of rent levels. I shall have to inquire, but what I have just said correctly states the position. We cannot estimate exactly how different areas will respond, because it will depend on market levels. If our policy works, and we strongly believe that it will, more accommodation in the private rented sector will become available. That will have a favourable impact on rent levels. A prospective tenant will choose the best available accommodation.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) said that it is unrealistic to expect tenants on housing benefit to seek an unregistered rent. That is correct. Consequently, we have inserted clause 64, which provides a new power to control such abuses of housing benefit. It will ensure that excessive rents will not be charged.

Mr Millan: That is being done at the expense of the tenant. If a rent officer determines that the rent is excessive and fixes a lower rent, why should that not be the rent that is registered and paid to the landlord? Why should the landlord get a scandalously high rent?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It will operate as a deterrent. It will deter landlords from fixing excessive rents. We are not in favour of controlling rent levels because that would militate against freely negotiated agreements. We are putting forward plans to increase the private rented sector. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) said that good landlords cannot compete with bad landlords. That is because good landlords have been prevented from earning a proper return on their property. The assured tenancy system w11 create more choice in the private rented sector, which will make life much harder for bad landlords.
I should like to explain the purpose of clause 25 which the Opposition seek to delete from the Bill. It deals with the situation where, at the end of a contractual assured tenancy or during a statutory assured tenancy, the tenant receives from his landlord a notice of a proposed rent increase and refers that notice to the rent assessment committee for adjudication.
When a tenant refers such a notice to the rent assessment committee, the committee will determine the rent which should apply. The rent so determined will be the rent which, in the committee's opinion, the house could fetch on the open market. The rent determined by the committee will be the rent payable, unless the landlord and tenant agree a different rent—either a higher or a lower one. There may be circumstances in which the two parties will want to settle on a different rent. But the tenant will have the protection that he need not pay any rent above the figure determined by the committee. The determined rent will be payable from the date specified in the landlord's notice, unless the committee specifies a later date, which it will do if it considers that starting the new rent on the landlord's proposed date would cause the tenant undue hardship.
The Opposition's new clause 5 would introduce a completely different system, although the defective drafting makes it difficult to know exactly how the system would operate in all respects. The two main elements of this are that all tenants, whether assured, protected, secure, or otherwise, would be able to apply for a determination of rent at any time, not only at the end of a contractual tenancy or during a statutory assured tenancy and that rents would be determined according to the tenant's means and the "suitability" of the house, rather than by reference to market rent levels. I cannot accept either of those propositions.
One of the underlying principles of the assured tenancy regime is that rents will be freely negotiable between landlord and tenant and it follows that whenever a landlord and tenant enter an agreement both parties should be bound by that agreement. When a tenancy agreement comes to its end, it is appropriate that the tenant should then have the right of recourse to the rent assessment committee. The existing clause 25 provides precisely that right. But it would be contrary to the whole purpose of the assured tenancy regime if tenants were to be given an open-ended right to challenge their contracts, and to give the right to all tenants, whether assured or not, would be entirely unacceptable.
Turning to the question of the criteria for the determination of rents, I quite understand that Opposition Members do not like the idea that a tenant should pay a market rent. That is because they oppose anything that would lead to a regeneration of the private rented sector, which has shrunk enormously in the years since the second world war and is now just over 6 per cent. New clause 5 would be an invitation to tenants deliberately to seek unsuitable accommodation, negotiate a reasonable rent with a landlord and then apply to the rent assessment committee for a determination of a lower rent. That would be unfair on landlords who had negotiated a tenancy agreement in good faith.
The essence of the Bill is to get an appropriate balance between the rights of tenants and the rights of landlords. We believe that the proposals are most certainly not a

charter for Rachmanism. They strengthen the protection of all tenants against harassment and illegal eviction. Tenants will have security of tenure very similar to that under existing legislation and there are safeguards built in to prevent the charging of excessive rents above market levels.
I have listened carefully to the case put forward for new clause 16, but I am convinced that the power that it would give local authorities is unnecessary.
The main purpose of part II of the Bill is to introduce the new assured tenancies which will steadily replace the regulated tenancies, which are subject to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984. The provisions in that Act will therefore become transitional, although the period of transition is likely to cover many years. It is therefore right that regulated tenants and their landlords should retain the right to have a rent registered. I do not see a strong argument for extending that power to local authorities.
Hon. Members argued in Committee that tenants on housing benefit had no incentive to have a rent registered for fear that their rent would be reduced, and it was argued that local authorities would be seen as being neutral and therefore not likely to be affected by these considerations. I have to say that the evidence from England and Wales, where local authorities have this power, is that very little use of it is made in practice. And in Scotland, where local authorities can refer rents of part VII contracts to the rent assessment committee for registration, the number of such referrals is very small indeed. I see no point in legislating to give local authorities a power that will be used little if at all and will become useless as regulated tenancies are phased out.
New clause 6 seeks to prohibit premiums on short assured tenancies. The arguments in favour of prohibiting premiums on assured tenancies have been fully expounded in Committee and I accept that there is no place for premiums in the present tenancy regime. If landords had been allowed to charge premiums for granting protected tenancies, that would have been used as a device for effectively avoiding the system of rent control.
That argument does not apply to the new regime, because landlords who grant assured tenancies will not be subject to any statutory rent control and will be able to charge a market rent. So landlords will have no incentive to charge a premium. Indeed, any landlord who did attempt to charge one would probably not succeed in letting his property. I expect that some landlords will want to charge a moderate deposit on letting; that practice is fair enough.
I said during the Standing Committee's consideration of a similar proposal that the Government would give particular thought to the case for prohibiting premiums on short assured tenancies. It is true that there will be a form of rent control for short assured tenancies, in that anyone with this type of tenancy will be able to seek a determination of rent from the rent assessment committee at any time during the tenancy. However, as the rent assessment committee will make its determinations on the basis of market rents, we believe, on reflection, that landlords will have no greater incentive to charge premiums for this type of tenancy than for assured tenancies. Our current view, therefore, is that there is no need to prohibit premiums under the new regime.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister is an innocent abroad. He is suggesting that there would be no incentive


for landlords to try to secure premiums—key money—to enable a tenant to take up a tenancy. There will be considerable incentives to do so because they will be able to get away with it. Given that there is a severe shortage of housing to let in Scotland and that there will be fierce competition to take up tenancies whenever they occur, it will be all too easy for landlords to abuse the system in this way.
It is appalling that the Government are not prepared to take any steps to outlaw this sort of abuse. The Minister implicitly acknowledged that it was an abuse, but he is not prepared to do anything about it. He chides us on the grounds that we are hostile to his proposed redevelopment of the private rented sector, but he is wrong to do so. The Opposition would be happy about any development of the rented sector in Scotland that would meet the need, but the difference between the Minister and us is that we are not prepared to accept that tenants should have to pay any price for that development in the private rented sector.
We have already established that there is a severe shortage of housing to let in Scotland. We know that there are many desperate people who would be prepared to make serious sacrifices, which they probably cannot really afford, to secure homes for their families. They are likely to be prepared to pay premiums under these desperate circumstances and may be prepared to offer inflated rents. Yet the Minister has the gall to describe them as freely negotiated rents. There is no freedom for people facing the threat of homelessness; that is the point that the Government refuse to tackle.
We are discussing a distorted and unfair market, and it is deplorable that the Government are introducing legislation that will deprive tenants of any protection from unfair practices by landlords. The reference to freely negotiated rents is absurd.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) mentioned experience in his constituency, where there has been palpably criminal conduct on the part of one private landlord. I have no doubt that there are perfectly reasonable private sector landlords in Scotland. No one wants to inhibit them, but the Minister has acknowledged on another occasion that there is a criminal element, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan made it clear that there has recently been a serious abuse in his constituency.
In spite of that, the Government are apparently prepared to open the floodgates and allow rents to go sky high, with no recourse to tribunals or controls of any kind. We want to ensure that there is a proper regime of fair rents, as there is now. We are not prepared to see tenants in Scotland making the sacrifices that the Minister seems prepared to impose on them.
We are extremely alarmed about the difficulties that will confront people claiming housing benefit in these circumstances. I shall quote from the Scottish Development Department's consultation paper on the private rented sector and the implications for housing benefit. Paragraph 13 states:
The rent set by the rent officer will not be a maximum rent chargeable for the dwelling. It will be open to the landlord to set the rent at the maximum eligible level, or to charge a higher rent and seek a tenant willing to pay that rent. It will be open to the existing tenant, should he have the means to do so, to make up the difference.
How on earth can someone on housing benefit make up the difference? That is a formula for forcing these people out of their homes, and the Government are apparently

prepared to accept it. The formula means more evictions, more insecurity and more homelessness, and the Minister should he ashamed of himself. I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 230.

Division No. 238]
[9.15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Gordon, Mildred


Allen, Graham
Graham, Thomas


Alton, David
Hardy, Peter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Heffer, Eric S.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Henderson, Doug


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Barron, Kevin
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Battle, John
Home Robertson, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hood, Jimmy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blair, Tony
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Illsley, Eric


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ingram, Adam


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Janner, Greville


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor


Buckley, George J.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Caborn, Richard
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Callaghan, Jim
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lamond, James


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Leadbitter, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Terry


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Litherland, Robert


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Livingstone, Ken


Clay, Bob
Livsey, Richard


Clelland, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Loyden, Eddie


Coleman, Donald
McAllion, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Corbett, Robin
McFall, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cox, Tom
McLeish, Henry


Crowther, Stan
McNamara, Kevin


Cryer, Bob
McTaggart, Bob


Cummings, John
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Doran, Frank
Michael, Alun


Douglas, Dick
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eadie, Alexander
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mullin, Chris


Fearn, Ronald
Murphy, Paul


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Nellist, Dave


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
O'Brien, William


Fisher, Mark
O'Neill, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Foulkes, George
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galbraith, Sam
Prescott, John


Galloway, George
Primarolo, Dawn


George, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Redmond, Martin






Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reid, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Richardson, Jo
Vaz, Keith


Robertson, George
Wall, Pat


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wallace, James


Rogers, Allan
Walley, Joan


Rooker, Jeff
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rowlands, Ted
Wareing, Robert N.


Ruddock, Joan
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Salmond, Alex
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spearing, Nigel



Steel, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Stott, Roger
Mr. Nigel Griffiths.


Strang, Gavin



NOES


Adley, Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Alexander, Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forman, Nigel


Allason, Rupert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Amess, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Amos, Alan
Gale, Roger


Arbuthnot, James
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gill, Christopher


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Ashby, David
Gower, Sir Raymond


Atkins, Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Atkinson, David
Green way, John (Ryedale)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gregory, Conal


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Baldry, Tony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Grist, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Grylls, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hanley, Jeremy


Benyon, W.
Hannam, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr'


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hawkins, Christopher


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hayes, Jerry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayward, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Heddle, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hill, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hind, Kenneth


Bowis, John
Holt, Richard


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hordern, Sir Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Howard, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bright, Graham
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Burns, Simon
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Burt, Alistair
Hunter, Andrew


Butler, Chris
Irvine, Michael


Butterfill, John
Irving, Charles


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Jack, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Janman, Tim


Carttiss, Michael
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cash, William
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kilfedder, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Durant, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knowles, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman





Lang, Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Latham, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lawrence, Ivan
Sackville, Hon Tom


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lord, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Speller, Tony


Maples, John
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miller, Hal
Sumberg, David


Mills, Iain
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Monro, Sir Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trippier, David


Neale, Gerrard
Trotter, Neville


Nelson, Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neubert, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walden, George


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wells, Bowen


Powell, William (Corby)
Wheeler, John


Price, Sir David
Whitney, Ray


Raffan, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wilshire, David


Redwood, John
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Woodcock, Mike


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm



Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. David Maclean and


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Rost. Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 9

RIGHTS OF SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION TENANTS

'It shall be the right of any tenant of the Scottish Special Housing Association whose home is transferred to Scottish Homes under section 3(1) above to decide whether his home shall continue to be vested in Scottish Homes or whether it shall be transferred to

(a) the district or islands council in whose area it stands; or
(b) any approved landlord.'.—[Mr. Home Robertson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 18—Rights of SSHA tenants—
`Nothing in this Act shall affect the security of tenure or the conditions of tenancy agreed between the Scottish Special Housing Association and a tenant unless the tenant agrees to any such change and, in the event of disagreement between the tenant and the landlord or future landlord, the tenant shall have the right of appeal to the appropriate rent officer or rent assessment committee.'.
New clause 19—Transfer of ownership of Scottish Homes houses
`The transfer to a private landlord or landlords of ownership of any house owned or administered by Scottish Homes shall not take place without the written consent of the tenant of that house, in cases where the tenant had the tenancy of the house at the time of the establishment of Scottish Homes.'.

Mr. Home Robertson: New clause 9 deals with the rights and prospects of tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association. The SSHA still has 83,000 houses throughout Scotland and the tenants in those houses are understandably anxious about the Government's plans for them. I should like at the outset to pay tribute to the powerful and effective response that has been brought to bear by SSHA tenants to the threat posed by the Scottish Homes consultation document, which was published by the previous Minister for Housing in Scotland before he lost his seat of Edinburgh, South in May 1987.
That consultation document referred to the establishment of a landlord division of Scottish Homes as
an essentially transitional … holding operation
to administer SSHA housing stock until it can be transferred into the private sector or somewhere else, out of sight and out of mind so far as the Government are concerned.
The consultation paper went on to say that Scottish Homes
would not need any programme of new housebuilding".
Therefore, the Government clearly had it in mind at that stage to phase out the SSHA, or its successor organisation, Scottish Homes, as a provider of public sector rented housing in Scotland. In other words, in the Government's view, the SSHA was an undesirable phenomenon, to be run down and disposed of, regardless of the opinions of the tenants in those 83,000 SSHA houses.
The tenants concerned were not going to put up with such treatment. We have seen an impressive campaign over the past year on behalf of the SSHA tenants' organisations. There have been media rallies in different parts of Scotland. I was present at a rally in Edinburgh on 27 February and was impressed by the number of tenants and their families who turned out to take part in a march in Prince's street and to fill the Usher hall to make it abundantly clear that they did want to be pushed around by the Government or by anybody else. They wanted to retain their existing tenants' rights and security.
I suppose that we should acknowledge the fact that the Government have moved slightly on this question since the original consultation document was published. They recognise the overwhelming weight of opinion and, as a result, both the White Paper and the Bill made no specific reference to the Government's objective of disposing of SSHA houses when they are transferred to Scottish Homes. Nevertheless, the implied threat is still there. The Government have made it clear that they do not like the concept of public sector rented housing and that they would rather farm out that housing stock in other directions.
There was an interesting development in the Shetland Islands in recent months, and no doubt the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will want to refer to it, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. The Scottish Special Housing Association is attempting to unload its housing stock in the Shetland Islands on to a housing association in the area, despite the fact that a significant number of the tenants have made it clear that they would prefer either to remain with the SSHA or to have the option of transferring to the Shetland islands council. Those tenants should have been consulted about that proposed transfer of public sector housing stock.
9.30 pm
This experience underlines the fears that many of the tenants inevitably feel after the questions that have been raised about their homes in various Government publications during the past year. They are entitled to be suspicious of the Government's motives and of the nominees whom the Government will appoint to the hoard of Scottish Homes. There is no proposal for any direct representation for tenants of Scottish Homes on the boa rd of Scottish Homes. That is a serious shortcoming in the constitution for Scottish Homes as laid down in the Bill. The absence of tenant representation underlines the fears that tenants have expressed.
Obviously, SSHA tenants do not want to be pushed out of their secure tenancies and the fair rents which they enjoy into new-style, insecure tenancies with sky-high rents under the assured tenancy system which the Government propose. The Government have clearly rejected the case for a ballot for SSHA tenants which we put in Standing Committee—so much for all the Government's slogans about tenants' choice. There is not much sign of tenants' choice for these people. They will not even be represented, let alone given an opportunity to choose whether to stay with the SSHA.
The new clause will establish a clear-cut right for SSHA tenants to choose whether to stay with Scottish Homes, whether to transfer to their local authority, whether to transfer, if possible, with continuing secure tenants' rights to a housing association or other approved landlord or whether to take the big risk of abandoning all their rights and becoming assured tenants in the private sector. These tenants should have an opportunity to decide what happens to their houses, where they may have been tenants for a long time.
I cannot believe that many SSHA tenants would take the option of transferring to assured tenancies. My conversations with my constituents who are tenants of the SSHA in various parts of East Lothian reveal that it is likely that a substantial number would like to take the option of transferring to the local authority. Who can blame them? Local authorities in many parts of Scotland have a good record as landlords, whatever the Government may like to say about them. I urge the House positively to consider the suggestion that 83,000 SSHA households should be given a genuine and fair choice about the future of their tenancies and their homes.

Mr. Bill Walker: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State realises that many Conservative Members and my supporters believe that there are already sufficient tenants in the public sector in Scotland. Consequently, we believe that the imbalance that exists should be redressed. The only way to do that is to ensure that there is an increase in the private sector,


which we are making possible in the Bill, and that those who transfer from the SSHA to Scottish Homes either remain with Scottish Homes or take the other options open to them.
I should oppose those people becoming tenants of local authority landlords because, contrary to what the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, local authorities have not been the world's best landlords. Frequently, they have been very poor landlords. Many of my constituents' complaints have arisen from the fact that the local authority has not behaved as well as it should. I know a number of tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association, and I would not wish them to be moved into the care of the local authorities in whose areas they live.

Mr. Home Robertson: What SSHA houses are there in the hon. Gentleman's constituency?

Mr. Walker: They are not in my constituency. Unlike the hon. Member for East Lothian, I know a lot of people who live in council houses and SSHA houses. Many of them grew up with me and I know their children. That is a fact of life. The hon. Gentleman probably knows far more people who live in castles than I do. I am not being nasty, but it would not surprise me, given his background. He ought not to be surprised, therefore, that I know many more people who live in SSHA houses than he does, and I would be totally opposed to their having a landlord like the local authority inflicted upon them.

Mr. James Wallace: I welcome the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). As I understood the thinking behind the Bill and the White Paper that preceded it, the intention was to extend the scope of choice for tenants. As it now seems likely that Scottish Homes will be created, the new clause would seem admirably suited to allowing an increase in tenants' choice.
As I understand it, under the new clause an SSHA tenant would be able to opt to transfer to Scottish Homes, to the local housing authority, or to any approved landlord. He cannot, of course, choose the status quo. Once Scottish Homes—a centralising quango—has been created, the tenant will not be able to decide to continue with his landlord of many years' standing, however satisfactory. Nevertheless, as Scottish Homes is to be created, the new clause is useful because it will enable the tenant to have a wider choice than would otherwise be the case.
It was often said in Committee that the theme of the Bill was "pick a landlord". As my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) pointed out, the phrase "choose a tenant" was more appropriate in some respects. The new clause would make the concept of picking a landlord more apt.
I wonder why the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is so opposed to that. He seems to accept that tenants should be allowed to choose Scottish Homes or a private landlord. If so, why should tenants be denied the freedom to choose a municipal landlord? The hon. Gentleman seems to advocate a denial of choice. The Tory party tells us that it is the party of freedom and of individual choice. I cannot understand why Conservative Members are so ready to deny tenants a choice open to them at present—a choice that some of my constituents have welcomed.
As the hon. Member for East Lothian said, the issue has been highlighted sharply in Shetland in recent months. If events in Shetland are a forerunner of what will happen under Scottish Homes, they are worth studying. The matter was debated in Committee, and I do not propose to go into the history in detail. There has been a background of dispute between Shetland islands council and the SSHA over factoring by the council. Over a number of years it became clear that the SSHA took the view that its tenants in Shetland were isolated from tenants in the rest of its housing stock. The association felt that the tenants were not getting the service that it would have liked.
Latterly, the SSHA proposed that tenants should be offered the option of becoming tenants of the Hjaltland housing association. The option of transfer to a housing association had been put forward in March 1984, when the tenants were consulted at a public meeting, but the SSHA itself accepted that that option was not particularly well developed at that time.
When approached in the latter part of 1986, the Hjaltland housing association did not object in principle to the transfer of tenants, but made it plain to the SSHA that if tenants were to be given that option, it was important that sufficient time be given for them to be properly consulted. The sorry episode that subsequently developed does not give one any confidence in the consultation methods that were adopted by the SSHA. One fears that such a lack of consultation would also be the case with its successor body. That episode does not give us any encouragement that the new legislation will be a marker on the road to greater tenant choice.
A public meeting was arranged in November last year to explain the situation to tenants. It was explained that there would be full consultation with them, which would start immediately. Unfortunately, only three days were set aside by the SSHA, when only 50 of the 142 SSHA tenants in Shetland were visited.
The SSHA then published comments that were highly critical of the local authority. Following that, the local authority took steps to meet the SSHA to see whether it could resolve the differences. At the meeting some important agreements were reached, including, first, that in any subsequent transfer of a tenancy, an independent source of advice would be available to the tenants; secondly, that all options were to be discussed, including the possibility of transfer to the local authority.
However, only a week after that a letter was sent out by the SSHA to all tenants. They were not given the option of transferring to the local authority; they were set a deadline. The letter was sent out on 18 December—a week before Christmas and two week before new year. The deadline was 31 January, by which time they had to make up their minds. The letter stated:
I would ask you to indicate your views on the transfer of your tenancy to Hjaltland by January 31st 1988 and unlees I hear from you before that date, it will be assumed that you are prepared to support the Association's recommendation that you should become a Hjaltland tenant.
It is not acceptable that tenants should be put in the position of making a positive reply or else finding that their rights as tenants and their legal status are transferred. That seems wholly inequitable, but it was the manner in which the SSHA went about its business that should be noted. The time given was far too short. It did not allow an adequate opportunity for full and independent advice


to be taken. In the short time available, Tenants' Participatory Advisory Services came to Shetland and efforts were made by the local authority to consult the tenants.
Along with others, I approached the SSHA to ask it to extend the period of time within which the tenants were to reply. That was not agreed, although subseqently it has been in practice. There has been some doubt about what response there had been. When the Minister addressed the Committee on 25 February, he suggested that the results had been submitted to his Department, but in a written answer to me last week he refused to disclose what the results were.
Through correspondence between the chairman of the SSHA and my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire I have some indication of the result. Of the 88 tenants who replied, an analysis has shown that 40 per cent. of all SSHA tenants wished to transfer to the Shetland islands council, 12 per cent. wished to remain with the SSHA and 6 per cent. requested more time.
The letter continued:
43 per cent. did not respond and in terms of the Association's letter could be assumed not to object to their tenancies being transferred".
I have no doubt that the figures are accurate, but it seems a distortion of the truth because 57 per cent. responded, of whom 70 per cent. — I draw that figure to the attention of the hon. Member for Tayside, North—wanted to be transferred to the local authority, 20 per cent. to remain with the SSHA, and 10 per cent. wanted more time for consideration. Clearly, no one positively sought a transfer to the Hjaltland housing association.
It is unfortunate that the Hjaltland housing association has been dragged into this by the less than satisfactory means used by the SSHA. The Hjaltland housing association is a reputable housing association, with a good record in Shetland, not least in providing housing for single people. It is regrettable that the local image of the association has been tarnished to some extent by an incident for which it can carry no blame whatever.
9.45 pm
Why, if the Government are anxious to promote the idea of choice for tenants, is that choice not open to tenants who have said that they wish their tenancies to be transferred to Shetland Islands council? In Committee the Minister said that, under section 12(7) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, the transfers were possible. If they are possible, why should tenants be denied the choice? We want a clear and direct answer to that question.
It is now being said that tenants can still transfer to the local housing association if they do so before 30 September this year—indeed, before the implementation of the Bill, if it is implemented. What happens if there is a transfer to the housing association before that date, and there is a subsequent transfer within housing stock belonging to the association? Will tenants' rights be subsequently lost—the rights guaranteed to them under the proposed terms of transfer?
It also seems unfair, although at present possibly quite attractive, to offer tenants, until 30 September, terms better than those that would be given after the Bill comes into operation. That is an indication of how tenants' rights will be restricted, rather than increased, by the legislation.
Many people would like to know the answers to those questions. Why will tenants not get their first choice, and what will be their rights if they have not exercised their

transfer rights by 30 September? If the Government cannot give a satisfactory answer, the legislation will be shown up for what some of us suspect it to be: a manoeuvre, in the guise of individual choice, designed in reality to emasculate the public sector—especially local authority housing—and to limit the choice available to tenants.
I hope that the Government will indeed agree with the principle of wider choice and accept the new clause.

Mr. Galbraith: I am pleased to rise to support the new clause. I am sure that it comes as a surprise to many that an hon. Member representing a constituency such as mine should speak on local authority housing.

Mr. McAllion: It is lost on English Members.

Mr. Galbraith: It is indeed lost on some hon. Members with constituencies south of the border.
I should explain that my constituency has the highest number of owner-occupiers of any Scottish constituency or, indeed, of the top quarter of the United Kingdom. It is often described as "the leafy suburbs of Bearsden and Lennoxtown, nestling under the hills of the Campsie glens." What is not immediately apparent is that it contains some very serious housing problems.
The reason for that is that my constituency also contains Strathkelvin, and within that is a district that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). As a direct consequence of the present Government's policy, housing has been poorly funded over the years, although there is an outstanding housing department and outstanding councillors and local officials are running a highly efficient and effective local authority housing service that responds to everyone's needs.
It is suspected that that under-funding is not unrelated to Scottish Homes, the SSHA tenants and their right to transfer back to local authority housing. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, to deprive them of that right is a basic negation of their democratic rights and freedom of choice. It is a disgraceful piece of legislation and, in time, it will come to be seen as that. There will be a demand that tenants should have the right to transfer back to a local authority. The Government are trying to run down the local authority stock so that the option will not be available to them. That is what is happening in my constituency.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West is in the Chamber. As I have said, he shares with me a district in the constituency of Strathkelvin. Strathkelvin wanted £15·5 million capital allocation, but it received only £5 million—one third of what it required. Can the Minister say why Strathkelvin received only £5 million this year?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: According to my list, Strathkelvin received £2,412,000 in the allocation yesterday.

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, and it is made up to £5 million by the money from council house sales.
I ask the Minister to go away and consider further the fact that Strathkelvin received only one third of what it required. That is not new. The Government have been running down the finance to Strathkelvin for some time. Housing support grant for 1980–81 was £2·2 million, and it has received nothing in the past four years. The rate fund


contribution was £200,000—a cut of £2 million in three years. That is what is happening and it is related to Scottish Homes and SSHA tenants.
Within my constituency, 10 per cent. of the housing stock is lived in by SSHA tenants who will be transferred to Scottish Homes. None of those tenants have been consulted, but they are to be pushed over without any right to transfer back. They will be transferred into a quango. At present they have democratic rights under a first-rate district council and a first-rate housing committee. They will lose all those rights when they are transferred.
We should look at the quango to which they are being transferred. It has no members, but the Bill says that the Secretary of State shall
satisfy himself, before he appoints a person to be a member, that that person will have no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the performance of his functions as a member".
When the Minister replies, perhaps he will develop that further and say whether Scottish Homes will ever have members who were private landlords at any time. I would like the Minister to answer that specifically.
In relation to Scottish Homes and the loss of SSHA stock, my constituency is particularly concerned about homelessness. A total of 240 people are homeless in my constituency. That is an increase of 12 per cent. since 1985. The local authority has agency arrangements with the SSHA to help deal with that. Will the Minister tell me what will happen after the formation of Scottish Homes? Will the agency arrangements be maintained? Can he be specific about what will happen in my constituency?
As a result of this legislation, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, some of my constituents will lose the choice and the ability to opt for a local authority landlord. Will the Minister accept the clause and give my constituents the choice of transferring into first-rate local authority housing, run democratically for the benefit of all people?

Mr. Thomas Graham: I am probably unique in the House because I happen to be an SSHA tenant and have been for the past 17 years. I have raised my family in an SSHA house and I am proud of the standard of the house in which I live, which was built specifically for the SSHA.
I should like to point out to the Minister that for five years I was the chairman of Linwood tenants association and we often went into battle with the SSHA about maintenance, repairs and incredibly high rents. Nevertheless, as a tenant I received an invitation to join in consultations about Scottish Homes. I received the letter in July and was told to have the letter back by August. Everyone is on holiday in Scotland in July. The Minister should have been aware of that, but he did not consider that when consulting the Scottish people on this important point about their homes.
I am delighted that the Government have the opportunity tonight hopefully to support the new clause. This is the first opportunity that the Government have given or could give to SSHA tenants. Rather than being represented by a quango or unelected body, SSHA tenants will have the opportunity to go to district councils and shelter under the umbrella of elected, responsible and

democratic councillors who will take care of the issues that concern the tenants. This is a golden opportunity for the Government to support the new clause.
We are going to create Scottish Homes from the SSHA. The district council will become a wee fly stuck to the wall. I understand what the Government are really pushing for. They want private landlords. I can assure the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that if the Government gave my constituents the opportunity to vote in a ballot, they would support going to two very respectable, decent local authorities—Renfrew district and Inverclyde. If the Government want to take up the challenge, they should, and my constituents will respond to it.
I represent the area with the largest number of SSHA tenants. Some of the largest meetings ever held in my constituency were about Scottish Homes. I can assure the House that my constituents are terrified at the thought of private landlords coming in. Some of the older tenants remember the heyday of the private landlords in Glasgow. Worse still, some of the young people are aware of the speculation that is taking place now by some private sector landlords.
Statements have appeared recently in the Glasgow Evening Times about one of those private landlords; I will not name him because proceedings are under way. If the Government support the new clause tonight, they will respond to the democratic wishes of my constituents. Clearly the 83,000 tenants would praise you, rather than castigate you. The consultation process was a disgrace. It did not afford the tenants in my area reasonable opportunity to discuss the Government's programme in full. However, I honestly believe that you are not interested, and that all you are interested in—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not "you".

Mr. Graham: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. When I said "you", I meant the Government.
Clearly, the Government are more interested in dismantling and fragmenting local authority housing—and especially SSHA housing—into the private sector for pure political gain instead of considering the needs of Scottish housing in general. They are not concerned about damp houses or rebuilding for the homeless.
What will happen to the sensible arrangement operated between the SSHA and Renfrew district council whereby SSHA families are nominated for Renfrew district council houses and Renfrew council house tenants are nominated to become SSHA tenants? If that stops, we shall have the largest problem of homelessness this century. If the private landlords come in, our children will not be able to afford the exorbitant rents that are charged in London.

Mr. Welsh: I support the new clause. The Bill is supposed to be about freedom of choice, but it is about the very opposite. The Government stopped short when it came to the freedom of tenants to choose the public sector. In other words, the Government are saying that a person is free to choose his landlord as long as it is a private sector landlord. It is like saying that a person can have a car of any colour as long as it is black. That is not freedom of choice—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting the Housing (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Welsh: The Government should follow through their own philosophy and give tenants real freedom of choice. The new clause starts to do that by giving SSHA tenants a real choice between the public or private sector. It is up to them to choose whether they prefer the public or private sector, but they should be given that opportunity SSHA tenants have been particularly well-organised and eloquent in putting forward their views on the Government's proposals, and they would be well equipped to make a rational and disciplined choice about their preferred type of tenure.
The problem with the Bill is that it is all one-way traffic—out of the public into the private sector. The Government are making a mistake in adopting such a lopsided approach to housing tenure. Tenants may only leave the public sector; they may not return to it or join it out of choice. There can be no real freedom of choice for such tenants until a genuine two-way traffic is allowed between the public and private sectors.
It may come as a surprise to Conservative Members that tenants may see the public sector as desirable. There has been a long and good working relationship between the SSHA and Angus district council, and many SSHA tenants believed that they were in Angus district council houses until, instead of having no rent increases like the tenants of Angus district council houses, they were faced with the shock of whopping increases within the SSHA system. Such tenants may find it desirable to go into an organised, prudent and progressive authority with a well-established housing department. There would be many advantages in making such a choice.
I shall support the new clause because it will give tenants choice. The Government are making a mistake in not following through the concept of freedom of choice, which is not what the Bill offers.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I was pleased to hear my new neighbour, the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), tonight. He will forgive me if I say he is not quite so attractive or elegant as my former neighbour and his predecessor. However, he is certainly making his mark in his constituency and, dare I say it, in my constituency as well.
I support new clauses 9, 18 and 19—

Mr. Harry Ewing: My hon. Friend must make a choice. Who does he prefer—Anna McCurley or my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham)?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Dr. Godman: I am trying to answer. That depends upon the criteria of selection. On some criteria my hon. Friend would win hands down, but not on others.
About 45 minutes ago I was informed by 10 Downing street that it is the Prime Minister's intention to visit Greenock tomorrow. In regard to new clause 9, I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister's visit to Greenock, or her stopover in Greenock, is not part of a whistle stop tour of Scotland. I believe that her tour is to include Erskine and Dundee. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will bring some cheer to the people of my constituency with certain announcements that she will make, or announcements that she will hear tomorrow.
However, if the right hon. Lady were to meet the SSHA tenants and the district council tenant there would be no cheers for the right hon. Lady. If she were to speak to Helen Pyper and Donald MacDonald, the leading lights of the Inverclyde SSHA tenants association, they would not miss her and hit the wall with their views about the Bill. Along with many other SSHA tenants, they have expressed real fears and deep anxieties about the Bill. I believe that the Prime Minister would get a thorough dressing down about the Bill if she were to speak to my constituents who live in SSHA houses.
New clause 9 widens the choice for SSHA tenants in a way that would be perfectly reasonable even to Conservative Members. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, it provides a degree of freedom of choice which surely must be perfectly acceptable to all SSHA tenants irrespective of political perspective.
I believe that the legislation as amended by new clause 9 and new clauses 18 and 19 might diminish the deep anxieties of many SSHA tenants in my constituency and elsewhere in Scotland. The evidence which I have to present to the House is anecdotal. It is not based on some rigorous statistical analysis, but I can tell the Secretary of State— not that he will take any notice—that I have been assured by many SSHA tenants that they would prefer their homes to be transferred to the Inverclyde district council.
In response to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) it is readily acknowledged by some Opposition Members that there are black spots in the history of the management of local housing. Many of those black spots were painted by central Government rather than local government, especially in terms of the architecture of housing and the council planning that went into the creation of many schemes in Scotland and elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde was close to the heart of the matter when he said that Inverclyde district council is a reasonable manager of public housing in Greenock and Port Glasgow, and in Kilmacoln, Wemyss Bay and elsewhere in my hon. Friend's constituency. He was also right to speak about the fears of SSHA tenants about the Bill, especially about the formidable prospect of becoming private tenants. All the SSHA tenants with whom I have spoken—I have two more meetings later this week with SSHA tenants associations—have said that they never want to become private tenants.
The legislation, as amended by this clause and by new clauses 18 and 19, would help to meet some of the anxieties of those fine, decent and honourable people. That is what they are. They should be treated in a fine, decent and honourable way by this Government, but that is wishing for the moon. This Government, especially as represented by the present incumbents of the Scottish Office, give not a damn for the interests of ordinary people.
The leader of this Government is to visit Greenock tomorrow. For many of my constituents she must surely be, because of this legislation, the social fund and the other changes that are being made to the social security legislation, the most hated, feared and reviled Prime Minister of the 20th century.

Mr. Douglas: I support new clause 9. I shall also refer to new clauses 18 and 19. I ask the Secretary of State to


reflect on his proposals. Sometimes he rightly castigates hon. Members for adopting frozen attitudes. All hon. Members have some frozen attitudes; sometimes they are frozen in the 1960s and sometimes they are frozen in the 1970s. We have to consider the challenges to Scotland and to Scottish housing towards the year 2000. I do not know what will happen in the medium term, but it is unlikely that major changes will be made to this legislation. An incoming Labour Government or a Scottish Assembly would want to alter it, but what will not alter dramatically is the pattern of our communities.
The Secretary of State proposes to allow communities, both large and small, such as Valleyfield, Oakleigh and Blairhall in my constituency, where there is a mixture of local authority, private and SSHA housing, to have a choice. The Secretary of State says that the SSHA houses are to go into Scottish Homes and that local authority houses can also go into Scottish Homes but that houses cannot come out of Scottish Homes. Whose attitude is frozen? The Secretary of State accuses the Opposition of having frozen attitudes, but his attitude is frozen because of his Government's and his personal repugnance of local authority housing ownership and local authority housing stock. That is not a fair assessment of people's needs.
The Secretary of State argues for a mix of ownership, which I support. There is a remarkable mixture of ownership in Dunfermline; a larger proportion of local authority and SSHA houses than in any other constituency have gone from the public into the private domain. If Scottish Homes is to be created, the Secretary of State should provide flexibility so that tenants are able to choose whether to live in Scottish Homes houses or whether it would be practicable and enhance a sense of community for them to move from Scottish Homes into the local authority sector.
The other new clauses also refer to the democratic element of choice. There is an implication in the new clauses that these things should not be done unless the tenants' consent is absolutely clear and I think that is fair. I know the difficulties of drafting, and the Secretary of State and those in his Department, with their legal minds, might say that the drafting is wrong, but I would ask him to accept that the intention behind the new clauses is to give some sense that these deals will not be imposed on the tenants.
I repeat what I said on Second Reading and referred to earlier in the debate. I have in my constituency a small village with a very deep sense of community. Some of the houses are owned by the MOD and some by the SSHA. Perhaps I am wrong in not trying to devise a new clause to cover the situation because there is nothing in the Bill, but it would have been very difficult to do it and highly unlikely that it would have been accepted. Here is a community where it would have been possible, with both housing sectors in the public domain, to allow the MOD houses to be transferred with the SSHA houses to Scottish Homes to keep the sense of community, but that, for doctrinal reasons, or perhaps Treasury reasons, is not being done.
If the Secretary of State points the finger at the Opposition Benches and talks about frozen attitudes, should he not consider whether he is also guilty of being frozen in his attitude by a doctrinal abhorrence of local

authority housing? I ask him to act in the interest of what is good for Scottish housing and of keeping the sense of community not just for the 1980s but into the year 2000.

Mr. Millan: The reason why SSHA tenants are so suspicious about, and indeed hostile to, this legislation is that it was clear that the Goverment's original intention was to hive off houses from the SSHA, presumably to the private sector. The Government have been moved from that position because of the hostile reaction of the SSHA tenants and are now saying that those tenants do not have to worry, because nothing is going to happen without their consent.
That assurance is all right as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. I want to ask the Minister how far that assurance goes and how long it lasts, because unless new clause 9 is inserted into the Bill the Opposition will take the view that the assurance will be very short-lived and that the Government will revert as soon as they possibly can to their original intention of hiving off these houses to the private sector. That would be wholly undemocratic and certainly against the wishes of the tenants.

Mr. John McAllion: I rise to lend my support, like my hon. Friends, to new clause 9, but first I must say that, like my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I was informed this evening that the Prime Minister would be visiting my constituency. This may come as something of a surprise to Dundonians, who in the past nine years have never been graced by the presence of the Prime Minister. For her to choose this week of all weeks to visit Dundee does not bode well for the city.

Mr. Home Robertson: Well, what did it do to Churchill?

Mr. McAllion: Churchill was a Liberal in those days.
I would expect that the Prime Minister would bring some good news to Dundee in terms of jobs for certain groups of us, anyway. I hope very much that jobs will be announced in Dundee tomorrow. But it is a matter of some concern to hon. Members that the press in Dundee should have been informed five or six hours before the Member of Parliament for Dundee was informed. That, of course, is par for the course for the present Prime Minister, who treats hon. Members with utter contempt, no matter on which side of the House they sit.

Dr. Godman: My experience is exactly the same as my hon. Friend's. I might say, however, that the Prime Minister declined my invitation to visit Port Glasgow. She is visiting Greenock, not Port Glasgow, and that for me is a matter of deep regret.

Mr. McAllion: I can understand why the Prime Minister picks the places she visits in Scotland carefully; she would not receive a welcoming reception anywhere.
New clause 9 deals with extensions of tenants' rights, and I should have thought that all hon. Members would support it for that reason. The Government have long argued that they are in favour of widening choice for everyone in Britain and for tenants in particular. An important element of choice must be the ability to decide who one's landlord should be. The Government have recognised that in other parts of the Bill, with the new pick-a-landlord scheme; if people happen to be Scottish


Homes tenants or district council tenants, they have that right. The Minister must tell us why SSHA tenants are not being given the same right in the Bill.
It is almost feudal to transfer property from the SSHA to Scottish Homes, given that that involves transferring families who happen to be living in the properties, without giving them any say in the matter. That is to treat them like medieval serfs or chattels, and that is what the Government are doing by failing to support the new clause.
I want to take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). The new Scottish Homes will be an uncertain type of landlord for the tenants transferred into its ownership. It will have a huge budget at its disposal for spending on housing, but we know from Committee that the Minister has been careful not to give it any sort of housing responsibility. Dampness, condensation, overcrowding and homelessness will not be the responsibility of Scottish Homes; that will remain with the district councils. Scottish Homes will spend its huge budget only on joint projects with the private sector on the sort of schemes that involve two or three pounds of private sector money for every one pound of public sector money. So it will not spend the money looking after its new tenants.
The tenants of Scottish Homes must wonder what the priorities of the new agency will he. They will certainly not be the tenants who come under its control. Bearing in mind the consultation document, we remember that this is only to be a transitional stage and that Scottish Homes will quickly dispose of the 83,000 tenants to some other form of tenure. That remains the secret, hidden agenda of Scottish Homes, even though the Government have been forced to back down on it. The people who run Scottish Homes will get rid of those tenants as a priority—some of them into the private sector—and it is that which gives rise to our fears.
Tenants earnestly desire the right to choose district councils as their landlords. The Minister came to Whitfield and met Mrs. Sandra Thomson, a leading activist there who has done a tremendous amount of work to organise tenants over the past few years. She has written a paper on the new Housing (Scotland) Bill, setting out her thoughts about it. In one part of the paper she speaks about the role of tenants' organisations and how they have been ignored by the Government:
It appears that in the new Bill, no provision or thought has been given to Tenants Organisations already established within communities, or new ones wishing to set up into groups. Most organisations depend on local authorities to allocate a house to use as a meeting place and organise activities for children and adults. Primarily, they are set up to help upgrade their areas, but mainly to help alleviate feelings of depression and isolation, especially in areas of multiple deprivation.
Most tenants from all walks of life, have had no say nor has there been any consultation with them concerning the Bill.
If the Private Sector take over streets, this will leave tenants' groups with nothing, they will disintegrate to such an extent, that there will be no more community spirit left. The time it has taken to become involved will have all been wasted.
If the private sector do allow groups to stay, they would be unable to meet the cost of keeping their lounges open, because landlords will not give the same grant aid that local authorities do. If they are allowed to remain open, they would he accountable every move made, this has very significant implications, thus reduce the rights of the tenants.
That is the legitimate and genuine voice of tenants who are concerned that the measures in the Bill will drive them

out of the public sector and away from local authorities. They make provision for their tenants and give them the right to come together and make demands on the landlord for the provision that they want. But a landlord's charter is included in the Bill, which will drive tenants into the private sector and denude them of their rights. The Minister should really be supporting new clause 9 to let the tenants decide what they want, rather than have the Government decide for them.

Mr. Dalyell: May we clarify the position? We must go back to the question that was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian). Let me put it specifically in another form. Much of the trouble in West Lothian stems from the fact that some senior housing councillors went to a conference and returned to tell us that Derek Mason had made it very clear that within two or three years many of the SSHA houses would he disposed of to the private sector.
My questions are simply, first, whether Derek Mason said that—to my satisfaction he undoubtedly did—and secondly, was he speaking with the authority of Ministers? Is that the intention of SSHA as it is now, Scottish Homes as it will be in the 1990s?

Mr. McFall: The Bill integrates the SSHA into the new agency called Scottish Homes. Commentators in Scotland have not seen any intrinsic merit in that proposal. Nothing that the Government have said has given us any sign that the scheme has any merit. I contend that the future policy should be dealt with separately, in conjunction with tenants, staff and the management of the SSHA.
I am at a loss to understand the housing policy that is behind the Government's creation of this super-quango. The Government talk about housing associations leading the way, but they account for only 2 per cent. of the housing stock in Scotland. In no way can one see them leading a major revival in the public sector. In fact, evidence from a study in England and Wales by the Priority Estates Project seems to contradict the appropriateness of divorcing the management of homes from the range of other local authority services. Certainly the tenants are against it.
A democratic case has been put time and again. The tenants whom I have met in my constituency have said to me that if one member, one vote is good enough for trade unions, as the Government say, it is good enough for tenants when deciding which landlord they want.
The Scottish Homes scheme has no proposals for decentralisation. There are no guarantees for tenants' representation on the board. As my hon. Friends have said, it is up to the Secretary of State alone to decide the composition of the SSHA board. The Government's solution to the problem of the peripheral estates is contrary to the years of evidence that have been built up in Scotland, as indeed is the case in England and Wales in relation to the Priority Estates Project.
We are putting the case to the Government tonight through tenants' eyes. That viewpoint has been missing from the Government's approach time and again. We on this side of the House have spoken to tenants in their hundreds and thousands and gone to meetings. This is the message that tenants give us. We are not making up a story. We are putting over the tenants' case and their fears. Tenants tell me and my hon. Friends that deregulation in the housing market will not create a new and stable investment for them in the private rented sector.
Elderly tenants in my constituency have told me that the private sector in Dumbarton 50 years ago meant that two thirds of the population of the town lived in two or three narrow streets. The average number of people in homes in the town—room and kitchens, as they were called—was six, seven or eight. The infant mortality rate was 15 to 20 times what it is today. That was when the private sector reigned supreme in Dumbarton, and that is why we speak against the Government's reintroduction of the private sector without any consideration whatever for tenants.
Time and again the Government tell us that the Bill is about consumer choice. The message that I have for the Government is that they are knocking consumer confidence on the head and consumers have no faith in the Government. They say that the Government are introducing this legislation for the sake of short-term speculation and that it will result in high-cost, low-quality housing.

Mr. Paul Marland: What about jobs?

Mr. McFall: What about jobs? This debate is about Scottish housing and we do not need an ignorant comment from an hon. Gentleman who came in a few seconds ago. His comments have got nothing to do with the general debate.
Scottish Homes has no statutory duty to house the homeless, and homelessness in Scotland is a blot on the Scottish landscape. My constituents say to me that private finance can be attracted only on the basis of profit. For every pound that goes into the landlord's pocket, they say that there will be a pound less for repairs, for modernisation and for the provision of new housing stock.
The Government talk about
meeting the housing needs through a variety of rent regimes.
In uncoded language, that means rent increases. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) said, no assurances are offered to tenants by the Government. Is the assurance for SSHA tenants the same as the assurance for people in assured tenancies? The Government say that the minimum period for assured tenancies is six months. That is the case the first time round, but thereafter they can be for two or three months. That means that under the legislation a person in an assured tenancy for 10 years may have no more than two or three months' notice to get out. Will that help tenants and stabilise housing in Scotland?
Opposition to the Government is widespread, and the Government have heard it not only from us but from tenants all over Scotland. The strength of dissatisfaction among local authority and SSHA tenants has been made known. I shall put my interpretation on what the Government are doing. They are paying no regard to Scottish housing, to Scotland or to the future need of the nation. In one fell swoop the Government are dismantling communities. That is at the core of this legislation and that is why it should be wholeheartedly opposed.

Mr. Canavan: I am rather bemused by all the talk by hon. Members about prime ministerial visits to constituencies. I have not been informed about any intended visit to my constituency, although perhaps the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are keeping it a big secret. In the Prime Minister's interests a visit to my constituency would have to be very secretive. She would be assured of a very hot reception.

Mr. Bill Walker: One of the most disturbing things that I have heard in the debate was the announcement about what the Prime Minister is doing tomorrow. Do the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not realise that one of the reasons for such information being kept a tight secret is the danger that its publication would impose on the Prime Minister and anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity?

Mr. Canavan: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, it is a sad reflection on the type of society that the Prime Minister has helped to create in Britain. If Ministers, including the Prime Minister, cannot go on to the streets of this country in relative safety, they must take some of the responsibility for the hellish society that they have created.
When I say that the Prime Minister would be assured of a hot reception if she ever set foot in my constituency, I do not mean that in an intimidating and physical sense. I simply mean that her policies on housing and everything else are utterly despised by the vast majority of my constituents because she has foisted them on people against their wishes and with no mandate from the people of Scotland.

Mr. Graham: I have tonight received a letter informing me, as a matter of courtesy, that the Prime Minister will undertake an engagement in my constituency tomorrow. I was told by the local newspapers over a week ago that the Prime Minister was coming to my constituency and would be visiting Erskine, Port Glasgow and Greenock. I find it strange that I am told this tonight. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) mentioned security reasons, but why tell other people and not me, as I was elected to represent my constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot find anything in the new clauses about the Prime Minister's visits to anywhere. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will now address himself to the new clauses.

Mr. Canavan: If or when the Prime Minister comes to my constituency, perhaps she could visit some Scottish Special Housing Association tenants who are affected by the Bill.
New clauses 9, 18 and 19 refer to SSHA tenants. I am informed by the association that, in my constituency, there are 217 such tenants in Camelon, 258 in Hall Glen, 539 in Denny and 85 in Stenhousemuir, giving a total of 1,099. When the Government published their consultation document prior to the publication of the White Paper and the Bill, I could not find an SSHA tenant in my constituency who was in favour of the proposals in the consultative paper. I could not find an SSHA tenant in my constituency who was in favour of the proposals in the White Paper. I still cannot find an SSHA tenant in my constituency who is in favour of the proposals in the Bill.
I have never maintained, and I do not think that any SSHA tenant would maintain, that the association is

perfect. I and other Opposition Members have been critical of some aspects of the SSHA. The fact that it is an unelected quango means that there is less accountability to the people and particularly to tenants than there is in council schemes. For example, if council tenants have a complaint about housing policy in general or about how it applies to their housing association, they can go along to their local councillor and he can take the matter up with his colleagues, the other elected members of the council.
Some of us have argued a very strong case for tranferring all SSHA stock to local authorities. I am not for disbanding the SSHA completely. The SSHA, or Scottish Homes as it will become, should have a continuing role in building houses in areas of high growth or high need where the local authority cannot be expected to have the necessary resources to cope.
The Bill will make the SSHA's position worse instead of better. The SSHA is the second biggest landlord in Scotland, with Glasgow district council having a slightly larger housing stock. Scottish Homes will become the biggest landlord in Scotland. One quango will have been taken over by an even bigger quango. Again, there will be a lack of accountability to members, with a subsequent lack of accountability to tenants. It boils down to a lack of democracy. Basically, the patronage of the Secretary of State will decide the policy of Scottish Homes and those who will implement it.
When the consultative document was issued last year, there was almost 100 per cent. opposition to the proposals affecting SSHA tenants. I do not speak just on behalf of the SSHA tenants in my constituency. I have received letters from many housing associations all over Scotland which were trying to make a co-ordinated national effort to oppose the Bill. My correspondence and meetings led me to believe that there was almost 100 per cent. opposition by all SSHA tenants to the proposals, yet the Government have been determined to go ahead.
In Committee the Minister dealt with a matter on which he could perhaps now enlighten the House. A big meeting was held in a Glasgow hotel attended by delegates of many tenants' associations representing SSHA tenants throughout Scotland, including a delegation from the Ochiltree tenants association in my constituency. I had previously met those tenants, who were angry about the Minister's proposals. They came away from the meeting with some hope because they found that not only they but virtually everyone at the meeting opposed the Government's proposals, with the exception of the Minister. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could tell us what transpired at that meeting and whether he or his officials could give any assurances to the people who had travelled to it from all over Scotland. I believe from my correspondence and the representations made to us that there is still great dissatisfaction. That is why we have tabled the new clauses.
10.45 pm
New clause 9 gives SSHA tenants the right to have the ownership of their home transferred to the district or islands council in whose area it stands or to any approved landlord. We simply ask the Government to give tenants the right to choose. The Government claim to be great supporters of the individual's rights and freedoms, of tenants' rights and so on. Indeed, in the original consultation document, they seemed to be saying that what they are about is extending choice between and


within the public and private sectors. But if the Government oppose the excellent new clause, as I suspect they will, they will be arguing against an extension of choice. All that we ask is that an SSHA tenant who wants to become a council tenant should have the right to do so.
The Minister and his buddies on the Front Bench are always praising the private landlord, who they say will come to the rescue and help to solve Scotland's housing crisis. According to the Government, large numbers of potential Tory landlords are skulking away, waiting for the Bill to reach the statute book, at which time they will come out of their hidey-holes and start to build houses and take them over to let to the homeless. That is codswallop. Anyone who has read the history of private landlords in Scotland will know that it is nothing to be proud of; as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, it is an absolute disgrace. We certainly do not want to turn the clock back to the exploitation of tenants, rotten housing conditions, high rents and evictions.
Having said that, I concede that there may be one or two decent, law-abiding, humane, good private landlords, or potential private landlords, around. If there are, and if an SSHA tenant wants to put his or her trust in such a private landlord, so be it. If the private landlord is approved — I understand that the definition of "approved" appears elsewhere in the Bill — the SSHA tenant has the right under the new clause to opt for the ownership of the house, and for his or her rights of tenancy to be transferred from Scottish Homes to that private landlord.
I should have thought that any reasonable Government and any reasonable Minister would realise that there is a straightforward tenants' rights argument at stake. I remember a previous piece of legislation that the Government had the audacity to call the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) (Amendment) Act, so they are at least paying lip service to tenants' rights. If they genuinely believe in the rights of the individual tenant, let them support new clause 9.
In making absurd claims that there is no demand for genuine political devolution in Scotland, the Government sometimes say, "But we are a Government of devolvers, because we devolve power from the state and from big organisations to individuals." If they really believe that absurd claim, let them act on it. A typical example of that concept of devolution would be to take power away from a big bureaucracy, such as Scottish Homes will become.
If the tenant wanted the ownership to be transferred to a local authority of more manageable size and with more local democratic accountability, the tenant would have that right. Similarly, in the event—in my constituency, it would be an unlikely event—of people wanting their house to be transferred to a private landlord, then, provided that that private landlord is approved under the Bill, the tenant would have that right. Therefore, if, as the Government claim, they are a Government of genuine devolution, they should support new clause 9.
New clauses 18 and 19 were tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who also has a considerable number of SSHA tenants in his constituency. As I said, I have more than 1,000 such tenants. I do not think that he has as many, but we will not quibble about that. The fact is that every SSHA tenant has certain fears about the Bill.
When the consultation was complete, the Government produced a White Paper, which was the precursor to the Bill, the relevant section of which is headed "Tenants' rights". Paragraph 2.6 states:
The position of tenants is the other aspect of the absorption of the SSHA within Scottish Homes which has caused concern.
It is an understatement to say that it has caused concern—I would say that it has caused fear and alarm.
The White Paper then states:
There has been considerable misrepresentation of the Government's proposals in this respect".
I should be grateful if the Minister would enlighten us about that alleged misrepresentation of the Government's proposals because the White Paper refers to
unnecessary anxiety among SSHA tenants".
There is certainly anxiety among SSHA tenants, but I would not have the complacency to describe that anxiety as unnecessary. I await the Minister's reassurances on that point.
The White Paper also states:
Scottish Homes will continue the existing role of the SSHA as a model landlord in relation to its own stock".
I do not know what the Minister means by a "model landlord" because, despite the good work that the SSHA has done since its inception over a century ago, very few SSHA tenants would say that it is a "model landlord" in every respect. There are genuine grievances against the SSHA as a landlord and fears that under the Bill tenants will become worse off rather than better off.
The kernel of my argument in favour of new clauses 18 and 19 is that in paragraph 2.8 of the White Paper, the Government state:
Tenants will continue to enjoy the same rights with Scottish Homes as their landlord as they would have possessed as tenants of the SSHA".
If that is true, and if the Minister is absolutely confident of its truth, he should not speak against new clause 18. All that the new clause does is enshrine in statute what the White Paper states in paragraph 2.8.
I have looked through the Bill—

Mr Galloway: Is my hon. Friend aware of just how intensely the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is listening to his speech, and how interested she is?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have heard every word of it, and I am bored stiff.

Mr. Canavan: I am very sorry for the hon. Lady, but she has my permission to go home to bed if she wishes. If she would like to intervene, I shall gladly give way, but if she continues to make rude seated interventions during this important debate—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I did not raise the point; it was the facetious hon. Member opposite.

Hon. Members: Which one?

Mr. Canavan: I do not think that the hon. Lady is referring to me, so I shall ignore her remarks.
Now I have lost my train of thought—because of the Lancastrian interventions. I do not want to be sidetracked.
I remember now. I was saying to the Minister that if the commitment in the White Paper is genuine, he should support new clause 18. I cannot claim, like the Minister, to be legally trained—although, to be honest, that lack of training is sometimes an advantage rather than a disadvantage—but I have looked through the Bill, and


cannot find in any of its clauses a categorical statement that SSHA tenants will not suffer from a deprivation or diminution of their rights. If I am wrong, I shall gladly withdraw what I have said; I stand to be corrected by the Minister. But my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West and I tabled the new clause because of the fears of our constituents, which are shared by the constituents of many other hon. Members.
I do not think that the SSHA has any houses in Lancaster, but it certainly has houses in many Scottish constituencies, and new clause 18 would help to alleviate many of the present anxieties.
Under new clause 18, the tenant would have to agree to any change in conditions of tenancy. In the event of a disagreement about those conditions, or about security of tenure—and I suggest that rent levels be included as well—the tenant would have the right to appeal to the appropriate rent officer, or to the rent assessment committee.
At present, some SSHA tenants would argue that their rents are a bit too high. What I suppose was one of the SSHA's last circulars before it is wound up under the legislation was put out to tenants in my area — and presumably throughout Scotland — saying that rents would be increased by up to £150 a year. Under new clause 18, the SSHA or its successor organisation, Scottish Homes, would not be able to do that unilaterally. It would have to come up with proposals for rent increases and, if an individual tenant or group of tenants disagreed and thought that they had a fair case about a proposed rent increase or any other change in the tenancy agreement, they would have the right of appeal to the appropriate rent officer or the rent assessment committee. Perhaps the Minister could advise us what he thinks would be the best procedure—whether it should be an individual decision by the rent officer or a collective decision by the rent assessment committee.
11 pm
New clause 19 also stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West. It refers to transfers
to a private landlord or landlords of ownership of any house owned or administered by Scottish Homes.
We are saying that the transfer of ownership to a private landlord should not take place unless written consent has been obtained from the tenant of the house in question. I have confined the drafting of the new clause to cases where, at the time of the establishment of Scottish Homes, the person or persons were SSHA tenants. In other words, it would not apply to future tenancies but would apply only to tenancies in existence prior to the setting up of Scottish Homes. I should have thought that that would narrow the scope a little and make it easier for the Government to accept the new clause.
It comes down to the basic question of tenants' choice and tenants' rights. The Government claim that they are in favour of the rights of individual tenants, so surely it is not asking too much that the consent of the tenant ought to be obtained before the ownership of his or her house is transferred.
I tabled another new clause about having a ballot of all SSHA tenants, but that was not called, so I do not want to dwell on it. I believe that the matter was raised in Committee and was adequately dealt with then. I certainly do not want to go over ground that was raised in Committee.
The effect of new clause 19 is that, rather than the decision being made collectively by means of a ballot, it would, in the spirit of the concept of devolution proposed by the Government, devolve the decision to the individual tenant. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give it sympathetic consideration.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to respond. Like the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) I too represent SSHA tenants and am glad to have the opportunity to do so. I am well aware of their views. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that we do not want to turn the clock back. In fact, we want to turn the clock forward.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West asked how rents will be set for SSHA tenants. They will be set on the same basis as at present and the rent assessment committee does not and will not play any part. They will be secured tenants as tenants of Scottish Homes.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) asked whether agency arrangements would transfer. The answer is that all contractual agreements and formal liabilities that the SSHA has with local authorities or anybody else will transfer to Scottish Homes under the terms of clause 3
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked about Shetland tenants and the extent of consultation. Tenants have been fully consulted in the Shetlands and it is in the light of their response that the SSHA has decided not to cease being their landlord. The SSHA held public meetings to which tenants were free to come and offered to visit tenants individually in their homes. The fact that it was unable to make contact with some tenants cannot reasonably be held to be a criticism of its attempts at consultation. I should make it quite dear that the SSHA is not withdrawing from Shetland as a landlord.
The essence of new clause 9 is the Opposition's belief that local authorities should be encouraged to grow ever larger as landlords. That is in spite of the fact that they already own more than two out of every three rented houses in Scotland. It also ignores the fact that in some local authorities the council owns almost eight out of every 10 houses. Allowing for the fact that the other two houses include those which are owner-occupied, the local authority is virtually the only landlord available to anyone wishing to rent in those areas. However, the Opposition's response to that horrifying lack of choice and opportunity is to seek ways of making local authorities even greater monopoly landlords than they are now.
There is no point in the Opposition including a reference in this new clause to other types of landlord. That is a smokescreen. The tenants of Scottish Homes will have the rights available under tenants' choice provision as the Bill stands without any need for the relevant part of the new clause. It is well known that we are not opposed to Scottish Homes tenants having the choice of moving to another landlord. One of Scottish Homes' main tasks will be to offer its own tenants wider choice in relation to the way in which their houses are managed and by whom. We have always made that clear. I am glad that the Opposition now share our view that Scottish Homes tenants should be offered the option of transferring to approved landlords.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister has seen the response of the SSHA tenants in Shetland; 70 per cent. of those who responded wanted to be transferred to the local authority. Why should they be denied that choice?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The possibility of the transfer of the houses to Shetland islands council was suggested as a fallback for those SSHA tenants who under the original proposals were not willing to transfer to the local housing association. The transfer of those tenants' houses to the council would still have allowed the SSHA to withdraw completely from the Shetlands. I want to make it clear that there is no question of the SSHA withdrawing from the Shetlands in the present circumstances. Therefore, the situation described by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) does not arise.

Mr. Wallace: I have listened to the Minister refer to a letter sent to Shetland islands council. Will he answer this simple point? The tenants were asked which option they wanted to exercise and 70 per cent. said that they wished to become council tenants. Why are the Government denying them the right to exercise that choice?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Quite simply, because the SSHA is not withdrawing from the Shetlands. That situation would have arisen if the SSHA had withdrawn from the Shetlands. However, as I have made absolutely clear to the hon. Member for Orkney, and Shetland, the SSHA is not withdrawing—

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I am aware of his views. The SSHA is not withdrawing.

Mr. Wallace: If the Bill becomes an Act and Scottish Homes is created, the SSHA will no longer exist. Why at that point should 70 per cent. of SSHA tenants who replied that they wanted to become SIC tenants, not be allowed to do so?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The only difference is that Scottish Homes will take over all the rights and obligations. The tenants will have the same rights of tenure, the same people will be looking after their houses and they will have the same way of setting their rents. There is no reason for them to withdraw in those circumstances because the SSHA—like its successor, Scottish Homes—is not withdrawing from the scene.

Mr. Brian Wilson: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Opposition seek to dress up their opposition to choice as it that was their own idea. The hon. Member for East Lothian made a speech recently at a housing conference, in which he said that the Opposition's alternative to the Government's policy would be to encourage co-operatives and housing associations. I find that a wonderfully novel twist, as those are the Government's policies. The Opposition are exchanging bankruptcy for theft.
The Opposition would have us believe that there can be no happier state imaginable than to be a local authority tenant and that local authorities cannot possibly dominate the lives of too many people. We suggest that the evidence is somewhat different. Alongside the well-built, well-maintained and well-managed houses which show the best of what local authorities can achieve, there are large

numbers of rundown and poorly managed houses, in which tenants are subjected to an impoverished quality of life which is a travesty of the standards which public services should represent. Some local authorities are too large and remote and some of them have been regrettably complacent about their tenants, secure in the knowledge that those tenants have no other practical alternative to renting from them as things stand.

Mr. Wilson: Notwithstanding the flood of subjective opinions which the Minister offers about local authorities, and bearing in mind that he answered the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) purely in terms of the specific Shetland situation, does he accept that there is an absolute contradiction between the use of the words "freedom of choice", a principle that I can go a long way towards agreeing with, and the refusal of freedom of choice to anyone who dares to offend the Government by wanting to choose a local authority?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is certainly an extension of choice and opportunity for tenants throughout Scotland. My view of local authorities is shared by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who, writing in The Guardian last Wednesday, said:
In the field of public services, particularly those provided by local authorities, the evidence does not suggest that efficiency ranks high in their reputation.
Nothing in the Bill prevents Scottish Homes from disposing of its houses to a local authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland, if that makes sense in a particular set of local circumstances. It certainly does not in the case of the Shetlands, for the reasons that I have given.
Let me deal now with new clauses 18 and 19. I continue to be amazed at the capacity of Opposition Members to ignore the facts about SSHA tenants and Scottish Homes. Clause 3(2) preserves the position of SSHA tenants as secure tenants, with all the attendant rights, once they become tenants of Scottish Homes. We made our intentions absolutely clear even before the Bill was published. New clause 18 is therefore entirely unnecessary.
The Government gave public sector tenants rights, against deep opposition from the Labour party, including the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), in the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. Those rights included the right to buy, which over 107,000 tenants have now done, and also a wider range of other rights, including security of tenure, the right to a written lease and the right of succession. Those rights, so widely welcomed, will not be taken away by the Bill. The Bill adds to them. When SSHA tenants become tenants of Scottish Homes, they will be secure tenants.
We have discussed a new clause to ease restriction on the discount applying in the right to buy. The Bill gives public sector tenants the right to invite another landlord to take over their houses.

Mr. Canavan: The Minister said that new clause 18 was unnecessary, and I think that he is implying that new clause 19 is also unnecessary. But would he care to tell us which part of the Bill, or any legislation on the statute book, says precisely what new clause 18 says or gives tenants security of rights equivalent to those proposed in new clause 18? Can he give us chapter and verse?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is absolutely clear that there will be no compulsion against any SSHA


tenants. No solution will be forced on anyone against his or her will. There is not a word of compulsion for public sector tenants. For SSHA tenants who are satisfied with the management arrangements for their homes, little will change on the advent of Scottish Homes. The same staff and offices will be there to deal with them, and Scottish Homes will maintain the same high standards of management.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister mentioned three or four different rights which he claimed the Government had given tenants under the provisions of the Bill. Why, if a tenant uses the pick-a-landlord scheme to move into an assured tenancy, will each of those rights be taken away by the Government?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is quite inaccurate. Under various Acts of Parliament, there are grounds for the eviction of council house tenants, just as there are for anyone else. The grounds may be slightly different, but the hon. Gentleman is quite incorrect.
The new organisation will of course develop a variety of alternative management arrangements for the houses it owns. These will be offered to tenants to take up if they wish, and tenants' views will be fully respected. New clause 19 is therefore entirely unnecessary. Clause 2(3)(b) of the Bill already prevents Scottish Homes from disposing of houses except in accordance with arrangements made by the Secetary of State. I must therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw new clause 19 or I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister was not terribly convincing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, the Government may claim credit for creating certain rights for tenants, but the Bill takes away those rights. There is no way in which the Minister can wriggle out of that aspect of the Bill.
The only choice that will be available to people moving out of Scottish Homes tenure will be to move into any tenure other than local authority tenure. It has been made abundantly clear that a substantial number—probably the majority—of SSHA tenants, given the option, would prefer to transfer to the local authority. Who would be surprised at that? The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that even if they want to, they should not be allowed to do so.
We have smoked out what the Government and the Tory party mean when they talk about tenants' choice. They are prepared to let tenants choose, so long as the tenants exercise the choice that the Government want them to make. If tenants have the temerity to want to transfer into local authority tenure, the Government will prevent them from doing so.
The Minister has pleaded guilty to that charge. Opposition Members want to establish genuine choice for tenants. We recognise the demands of SSHA tenants to be able to transfer to the local authority, but we would not stand in their way if they wanted to transfer to another sector. We believe in genuine choice. New clause 9 provides for that, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 252.

Division No. 239]
[11.18 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Henderson, Doug


Allen, Graham
Hinchliffe, David


Alton, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Holland, Stuart


Armstrong, Hilary
Home Robertson, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hood, Jimmy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Battle, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Illsley, Eric


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Janner, Greville


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
John, Brynmor


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Buchan, Norman
Kennedy, Charles


Buckley, George J.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Callaghan, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lamond, James


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Leadbitter, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lewis, Terry


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Litherland, Robert


Clay, Bob
Livingstone, Ken


Clelland, David
Livsey, Richard


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McAllion, John


Corbett, Robin
McAvoy, Thomas


Corbyn, Jeremy
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cousins, Jim
McFall, John


Cox, Tom
McLeish, Henry


Crowther, Stan
McNamara, Kevin


Cryer, Bob
McTaggart, Bob


Cummings, John
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michael, Alun


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Douglas, Dick
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)


Eadie, Alexander
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eastham, Ken
Morgan, Rhodri


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mullin, Chris


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Murphy, Paul


Faulds, Andrew
Nellist, Dave


Fearn, Ronald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
O'Neill, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foulkes, George
Prescott, John


Fraser, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Galbraith, Sam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Galloway, George
Radice, Giles


George, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Redmond, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Richardson, Jo


Gordon, Mildred
Robertson, George


Graham, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rogers, Allan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rooker, Jeff


Hardy, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ruddock, Joan


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Salmond, Alex


Heffer, Eric S.
Sedgemore, Brian






Sheerman, Barry
Wallace, James


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Walley, Joan


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N.


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Soley, Clive
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Brian


Steel, Rt Hon David
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Stott, Roger
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Gavin
Wray, Jimmy


Straw, Jack
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dennis
Mr. Allen McKay and


Vaz, Keith
Mr. Allen Adams.


Wall, Pat



NOES


Adley, Robert
Durant, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Eggar, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fallon, Michael


Allason, Rupert
Forman, Nigel


Amess, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Amos, Alan
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Arbuthnot, James
Fox, Sir Marcus


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Freeman, Roger


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Gale, Roger


Ashby, David
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkinson, David
Glyn, Dr Alan


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Baldry, Tony
Gow, Ian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Batiste, Spencer
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bellingham, Henry
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bendall, Vivian
Gregory, Conal


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grist, Ian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grylls, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Peter
Hannam, John


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bowis, John
Harris, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Haselhurst, Alan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hawkins, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayes, Jerry


Brazier, Julian
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bright, Graham
Hayward, Robert


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heddle, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Buck, Sir Antony
Hill, James


Burns, Simon
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butcher, John
Holt, Richard


Butler, Chris
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Howard, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carrington, Matthew
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cash, William
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cormack, Patrick
Irvine, Michael


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jackson, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Janman, Tim


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)





Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Redwood, John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Renton, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Riddick, Graham


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knowles, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rowe, Andrew


Lang, Ian
Ryder, Richard


Latham, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shersby, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maples, John
Squire, Robin


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mellor, David
Sumberg, David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Summerson, Hugo


Miller, Hal
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trippier, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Moore, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moss, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neale, Gerrard
Walden, George


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Neubert, Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Ward, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Watts, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wheeler, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Whitney, Ray


Oppenheim, Phillip
Widdecombe, Ann


Page, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Wilshire, David


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wolfson, Mark


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wood, Timothy


Pawsey, James
Woodcock, Mike


Porter, David (Waveney)
Yeo, Tim


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Price, Sir David



Raffan, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 11

APPLICATIONS SERVED ON NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

'Where an application is served under this Part of this Act (Change of Landlord: Secure Tenants) by a local authority on


a new town development corporation in the circumstances provided for under section 54(2)(d) above, the provisions of sections 55(5) to (10), 56, 57, 58(1)(b) to (3), 59, 60 and 61 shall not apply and the conditions of sale shall be as directed by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Adam Ingram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following : New clause 12—Capital expenditure on houses acquired by district councils—
'In so far as a District Council in terms of section 53(1)(b) above acquire houses from a Development Corporation the Secretary of State shall grant an additional amount of capital expenditure consent in the financial year in question, such additional amount to be not less than a sum equivalent to the aggregate amount payable by the District Council to the Development Corporation in respect of houses so acquired by the District Council under the powers conferred on them in terms of this Part of this Act.'.

New clause 13 — Assets of new town development corporation—
'Where the Secretary of State for Scotland makes an Order under section 36(1) of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 providing for the winding up and dissolution of a New Town Development Corporation—

(a) The New Town Development Corporation shall transfer to the Local Authority (being a local authority in whose administrative area the New Town or any part thereof is situated) the following assets:

All housing stock owned in whole or part by the New Town Development Corporation together with any property associated therewith or relating thereto (excluding housing held temporarily on land acquired by the development corporation for commercial or industrial development) together also with all rights, liabilities and obligations relating thereto, as defined in Schedule (new town property to be automatically transferred to local authorities) to this Act.'

(b) The new town development corporation may transfer to the local authority:

housing depots, office accommodation and nurseries and such other property as is defined in Schedule (new town property to be transferred subject to negotiation) to this Act.

Amendment No. 108, in clause 53, page 30, line 8, after `effect', insert '(a)'.

Amendment No. 109, in page 30, line 14, at end insert
; and
(b) for the purpose of conferring on a District Council the right to acquire from a Development Corporation any house within the area of that District Council which on the relevant date is occupied by a qualifying tenant.'
Amendment No. 110, in page 30, line 31, leave out 'this Part of this Act' and insert 'subsection (1)(a) above'.
Amendment No. 111, in clause 54, page 31, line 39, leave out 'this Part' and insert
`subsection (1)(a) of section 53'.
Amendment No. 105, in page 31, line 43, after 'homes' insert
`and subject to subsection (2)(e) below'.
Amendment No. 112, in page 31, line 45, at end insert
'in terms of subsection (1)(a) of section 53.'.
Amendment No. 106, in page 32, line 7, at end insert—
'(e) in respect of any house owned by a new town development corporation, shall be deemed to be granted to the local authority, which is the public

sector housing authority within whose administrative area the house is situated upon the winding-up and dissolution of the new town development corporation as provided for under section 36(1) of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968'.
Amendment No. 107, in page 32, line 8, after '(3)', Insert—
`With the exception of a deemed approval under subsection (2)(e) above.'.
Amendment No. 113, in clause 55, page 32, line 11, leave out
`or, as the case may be, Scottish Homes'
and insert,
'Scottish Homes, or, as the case may be, the district council'.
Amendment No. 114, in page 32, line 30, after 'served', insert `by an approved person.'
Amendment No. 115, in page 33, line 22, at end insert—
'(11) Where an application is served under this section by a district council on a development corporation the provisions of subsections (5) to (10) above shall apply subject to the following amendments, namely-(a) the offer to sell notice shall state the lesser of the market value of the house determined in accordance with said provisions on the date of service of the application and determined by the District Valuer and the outstanding debt in the development corporation's accounts in respect of the house; and (b) the offer to sell served under this subsection shall be subject only to such conditions as are accepted to be reasonable by the district council.'.
Amendment No. 116, in page 33, line 23, after `applicant', insert
`who is an approved person or as the case may be, Scottish Homes'.
Amendment No. 117, in page 34, line 1, after `applicant,' insert
`being an approved person or Scottish Homes as the case may be.'.
Amendment No. 118, in clause 58, page 34, line 49, at end insert—
'(4) Where a landlord is a development corporation and the application has been served by a district council the development corporation may not dispute the applicant's right.'.
Amendment No. 119, in clause 60, page 35, line 20, after 'Homes', insert 'or a district council'.

Amendment No. 120, new schedule — New town property to he automatically transferred to local authorities—

'1. Development corporation rented housing (including housing used for other purposes and excluding agricultural properties acquired and held by the Development Corporation on a temporary basis, pending development).
2. Development corporation rented housing developments which are under construction or are undergoing major rehabilitation.
3. Garage and car spaces associated with housing defined in paragraph 1 above.
4. Open space and play areas associated with areas of development corporation housing.
5. Associated roads, accessways and underpasses which are the property of the development corporation and have not been transferred to the roads authority.
6. Television relay systems.
7. Land forming infill sites in areas of housing defined in paragraph 1 above.
8. Land which has been allocated for housing and is awaiting development as part of an existing housing development area.
9. Depots used wholly to serve housing defined in paragraph 1 above.
10. Nurseries used wholly for maintenance of landscape in housing areas.
11. Local housing offices.

The following facilities shall be transferred to the local authority where they are situated in local or corner developments in housing areas, as opposed to neighbourhood centres:

12. Meeting halls and clubrooms.
13. Local and corner shops.
14. Garages, car parks and workshops.
15. Public houses and cafes.
16. Surgeries.'.

Amendment No. 121, new schedule — New town property to be transferred subject to negotiation—

'1. Land zoned for future housing development.
2. Development corporation houses situated within commercial or industrial developments or in areas zoned for future development.
3. Central housing offices.
4. Hotels.
5. depots mainly serving housing.
6. Nurseries mainly for maintenance of landscape in housing areas.
7. Landlords' rights and interests in land leased in housing development areas for miscellaneous purposes.

The following properties where they are situated in neighbourhood centres—

8. Meeting halls.
9. Shops.
10. Garages, car parks and workshops.
11. Public houses and cafes.
12. Surgeries.'.

Mr. Ingram: There are two purposes behind the new clauses. They are designed to create the circumstances in which tenants may choose, on the dissolution of a new town development corporation, to have a local authority as a landlord. They also attempt to lay down the principles and basis of such a transfer, and they are consistent with the previously agreed position between local housing authorities and the Scottish Office. The Bill, as explained by the Minister in Committee, is a repudiation of previous Government assurances on new towns and destroys many months of work undertaken by Scottish Office officials in consultation with the five district councils within whose boundaries the new towns lie.
The present law on new town development corporations in Scotland, under section 36 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968, provides for the transfer of new town district council housing stock to the relevant local authority. It is on that basis that assumptions have been made and assurances given by Ministers over recent years.
In July 1982, the Secretary of State made clear his intention to wind up the new town development corporations in Scotland. At that time he said that the rented housing stock owned by those bodies would be transferred to the relevant district councils. In early 1983 a working party was set up to examine the means by which that would be achieved. It comprised Scottish Office officials and representatives of district councils.
In August 1984 the working party reported. It set out the basis of the transfer on a no-profit, no-loss basis. More than a year's work went into arriving at that conclusion. The Minister took on board the working party's conclusions at the time, and in a ministerial statement confirmed yet again the Government's intention to transfer new town housing stock to local authorities. Therefore, the picture was clear to the 45,000 families who lived in new town corporation housing rented stock. Those families were secure in the knowledge that at some stage they would be transferred to responsible public sector landlords. That is no longer the case. New town tenants

face a most uncertain future because of the Bill and the way in which it has been changed by Government amendments in Committee.
One thing that we shall be able to tell those 45,000 families with certainty is that they have been deliberately misled by a Minister who neither cares nor listens to their views. In Committee the Minister said that new town tenants would be consulted before they were compulsorily transferred to landlords other than district councils. Those 45,000 families know what that means. Views will be ignored, just as the views of the SSHA tenants have been ignored. We have heard more on that tonight from the Minister.
If the Minister intends to consult those tenants, I should place on record some consultation that has already taken place. That may save the Government time and money. Two councils with new towns within their boundaries have consulted their tenants in recent months in relation to this legislation. Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council undertook a survey that was published on 29 February 1988. In an 11 per cent. sample of all new town tenants in Cumbernauld, 91·3 per cent. stated that they wished the district council to be one of the landlords from which they could choose on dissolution.
Cunninghame district council, which is responsible for Irvine new town, took an even larger sample of new town tenants, and achieved an 88 per cent. success rate amongst those tenants, who also stated that they wished the district council to be one of their options on dissolution.
I am sure that the Minister has been supplied with those findings. I shall be interested to hear what further consultation the Minister intends to offer in the immediate months for new town tenants which is relevant to those conclusions.
In Committee, the Opposition were accused of being premature in raising the very issues that are before us tonight in these new clauses. I must say that we were neither premature nor wrong in doing so. It is scandalous to treat the 45,000 families who live in new town district council houses in the way that they are being treated in the Bill. They have the right to know now whether they will be allowed the real choice that they clearly want—the district council. They have the right to know whether they will have a secure tenancy, with democratic control over rent levels in the future. Those are the choices on which they want to be consulted. They do not want to be told that the choice is limited and that the district council is no longer an option for them.
That clear message is coming not from Members of Parliament or district councils representing those areas, but from tenants. The Bill has provoked the tenants in new town areas to form tenants' associations. They are aware that they have a fight on their hands. They are going to fight to retain the very rights that were laid down in previous legislation—rights that they thought Ministers from 1982 onwards were declaring in terms of the choice open to them.
The Government have said that the new town tenants will have to wait until 1989–90 to find out what is going to happen to them. We have tabled these new clauses to reflect the wishes of each and every family living in a new town development corporation rented house. This provision also represents the views of many people who live in their own property. They want local authority


houses and local development corporation houses to be retained for the families which are being brought up in those new towns.

Mr. Robin Cook: I am glad of this opportunity to change places with my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), so enabling him to speak from the Opposition Front Bench and me to support the new clause from the Back Benches. At the outset, I wish to place on record, as the representative of a new town, my appreciation of the work that my hon. Friend did in Committee in exploring this issue and exposing the position of the Government.
It is regrettable that yet again such an important debate is to be answered by the Under-Secretary, who is not primarily responsible for housing in the new towns, and that the Minister of State who has that responsibility is absent.
When my hon. Friend raised this issue in Committee, he was told that in the next parliamentary Session the Government would introduce legislation to put into effect the proposals in their White Paper. Tenants in new towns are thereby left in a state of uncertainty and insecurity for the next year. We should resolve the issue tonight and we should do so in defence of tenants' rights.
This is a debate not about local authority rights but about tenants' rights. Local authorities have every reason to feel disgruntled about the Government's proposals. They have for long been encouraged to believe that the housing stock of the new towns would be transferred to them when the new towns were wound up. Indeed, they were encouraged to plan on that basis.
Only a few years ago, officials from those local authorities, as part of a working party, spent much time and effort planning how best to handle the transfer of that housing stock. Indeed, new clause 13 contains the overall view of that working party, which was organised, and at the time accepted, by the Scottish Office. It is par for the course under the present Government that all that work should now be thrown out without even the pretence of consultation with the local authorities which contributed to it.
Local authorities with new towns in their areas are now faced with the unpalatable prospect of being left with housing duties without the housing assets. In the context of Livingston, that will mean, for instance, a serious homelessness problem, because, although the local authority has few houses in the Livingston area, it will have to accept statutory responsibility for homeless families in the new town area. At present, the new town as a landlord co-operates voluntarily in discharging that duty. I see scant prospect of private landlords approved by Scottish Homes giving the same co-operation to the local authority in that important statutory function.
Although, for all those reasons, local authorities have every right to be dissatisfied with the Government's proposals, the really serious issue is the reduction in tenants' rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride said, nothing has so electrified opinion among tenants in Livingston new town as these proposals of the Government. In the last five years, we have not had a federation of tenants' associations, yet within two months of these proposals surfacing, we have an active federation, formed mainly around the determination of tenants to fight for the right to choose a landlord for themselves.
I stress that this is an issue of choosing the landlord. Once the Bill has become law, every public sector tenant with a local authority as the landlord will have the right to decide whether to remain in the public sector, and in particular whether to remain a local authority tenant. That choice apparently is to be denied new town tenants. They will not have the right to remain with their present landlord and will be denied the right to opt to become local authority tenants.
11.45 pm
We are not demanding that those tenants necessarily must become tenants of the local authority. The clause is framed so as to provide to those tenants the right to choose whether to become tenants of local authorities. They should be allowed that right and not denied it. I am confident that if the tenants of the new town and the tenants of Livingston are given that right to choose, most of them will choose to become local authority tenants. They will do that because as such tenants they will have greater security and a wider choice of transfers and will he likely to find their rents lower than the rents proposed by private landlords looking for an element of profit.
I may be wrong. It may well turn out that the majority of tenants in my constituency will prefer to have private landlords. That will at least establish that the Minister, in putting the Bill before the House and in floating the idea of Scottish Homes and registered private landlords, was right to expect that many tenants would opt for that form of tenure. I ask the Minister to at least have confidence in his own proposals and give tenants the choice. He should allow them to decide whether they want private landlords or wish to be tenants of a local authority.
The Government are fond of talking about choice. They commend the Bill by saying that it will give the tenant choice. Very well, let us give the new town tenants a choice as well. Let them decide whose tenants they wish to be, but let us make sure that all choices are made available to those tenants, including the opportunity and the right to become tenants of the local authority.

Mr. Henry McLeish: The clause is designed to inject some sanity into a Bill that is characterised by all the hallmarks of the Government—indifference, arrogance and contempt. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) spoke about the plight of the new town. I represent the new town of Glerirothes which has excellent housing provision and a quality of environment that is second to none. While the problems of that new town have been exacerbated by the lack of cash resources from the Government, it has done an excellent job for its tenants. To the Government, these considerations seem to be irrelevant.
A few years ago in discussions with the new town corporation, the Government agreed that when they reached the winding-up period in the early 1990s it was anticipated that the housing assets of the new town would be transferred to district councils. At the Dispatch Box and elsewhere the Government offer no compliments to local authorities that are doing a difficult job in the hostile environment created by the Government.
The other appealing feature of the transfer of new town tenants and their assets to the district councils is that at a stroke there would have been democratisation of the new town housing function. That would have been welcomed by many Opposition Members because it would have not only provided a more sensible form of housing


management, but built on the good physical policies that new towns have pursued. The Government would have none of that; through blind political prejudice, they have gone out of their way to ensure that the choice they talk about is not effective choice. That is because one of the key options for new town tenants will be removed by the Bill.
It is a tragedy that district councils with major housing responsibilities have at a stroke been taken out of the serious housing debate in Scotland. Many council leaders view with increasing dismay the hostility focused upon them by the Government. The prospect of my tenants being faced with a choice between an approved private landlord or absorption in Scottish Homes fills them with dismay, bitterness and a great deal of anger.
The reason for that is quite simple. A few miles from the new town in my constituency are two areas of British Coal properties that were bought by a private landlord. The landlord's headquarters are in Newcastle. It is a frightening prospect to represent areas in which the landlord is so remote from the tenants that it becomes a nightmare for them to get repairs done and for Members of Parliament to try and make the landlord tackle his responsibilities seriously. It is a return to the 1930s for that group of British Coal tenants.
Why, in my constituency, do we see, on the one hand, the problems of private landlords and, on the other, a Government hell-bent on introducing an alien form of ownership to the new town, under which, by any objective measurement, the tenants will be much worse off?
I return to the question of choice. It is nauseating to listen to the Conservative Front Bench talking about choice day in and day out, when it is choice only on the Government's terms. The Minister must tonight explain why a major option of district council involvement has been removed. Where is the intellectual or practical justification for taking excellent quality housing and tenants, casting them to the four winds and putting them at the mercy of the unscrupulous private landlords or of the new bureaucracy of Scottish Homes, which will be remote from the needs and aspirations of the people whom I represent in Glenrothes?
What is more disappointing about the whole thrust of the Bill, especially in respect of new town policy, is the irrelevance of the proposals to the needs of the new town tenants. According to information supplied by Glenrothes development corporation, which administers the housing function, there are at present 552 families, 555 single persons and 226 senior citizens on the general waiting list of new applications. There are 580 families on the transfer waiting list. Almost 2,000 families are looking for decent accommodation in an environment which is sensitive to housing needs.
The Bill does nothing for those people. I am worried that the proposals will worsen the chances of those people being adequately accommodated in the latter part of the 20th century in a safe and decent home that they can call their own, whether they purchase or rent. Why, at every turn, do we have politics based on dogma rather than on the needs of the people whom the Government purport to serve and to whom they say they are offering extended choice?
The number of people on the waiting list is only one aspect of the challenge facing the Government, who are indifferent to real needs. What about the prospect of

reduced cash for modernisation, repairs and maintenance? Is it not part of the Government's thinking to try to ease the burden on housing authorities, whether new towns or local authorities, which have tried to do a reasonable job in difficult circumstances? Is it not right that the Government should be providing in new towns allocation of cash for general needs? There has been a moratorium in Glenrothes since 1983. No housing has been built for general needs, despite a waiting list that now stands at almost 2,000 families.
The Government claim to care about people with special needs. Why, then, are the disabled, the elderly and the handicapped now part of a growing queue for decent housing?
It is heartbreaking to attend a surgery in my constituency — I am sure that this experience is shared by many of my hon. Friends — where elderly and disabled people seek assistance to obtain a property. The development corporation has many similiar families on the waiting lists and can do nothing to assist. I urge the Minister to take his responsibilities seriously, because the Bill is irrelevant to Scotland's housing needs and to the needs of the new town which I represent. Is it not time that the Government addressed the substantive issues that dominate my postbag and surgery and the needs of areas such as Glenrothes?
It is customary for the Opposition in debates with the Government to dwell on the alien philosophies that underpin most of the Government's practical policies, but those philosophies are outrageous and immoral when dealing with such sensitive issues as housing. We are facing another enemy of decent people—the housing benefit changes that have started to bite in the computer printouts that fall through the letterboxes of the people whom I represent.
I have catalogued growing demands for more repairs, more generous needs housing, more special needs housing and a fair deal for the disabled, the elderly and the handicapped. Will the Minister accept that the punitive element of housing benefit will only rub salt into their wounds? Will he accept that it is disgusting that an elderly person with a handicapped wife can have his housing benefit reduced so that he ends up paying perhaps £30 or £40 a month?
On behalf of the tenants whom I represent, I say to the Minister that the Government's policies not only are unwelcome but smack of an arrogance and contempt to which I thought Ministers would not be so low as to stoop.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to confirm to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that the moratorium on general housing has ended and that development corporations are now building general needs houses.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) raised these matters in Committee, and at that time I used the word "premature". I must do so again. The new clauses and amendments would give a district council the right compulsorily to acquire development corporation housing once an order for the winding up of the corporation had been made. The Opposition have ignored the reality that, under section 36 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968, the district council is already in effect the only possible inheritor of a new town housing undertaking when the development corporation is wound up. It would take fresh legislation amending the wind-up


provisions of the 1968 Act to change that. No such amendments are proposed in the Bill. We therefore have the curious prospect of a score of amendments proposing the very policy which is currently enshrined in statute.
That policy must come under question, however, because of the changes in the new towns over recent years. More than 21,000 new towns houses—over one third of the corporations' stock — have already been sold to tenants. The changes we have proposed to the discount restriction provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 will mean that many more new town tenants will be entitled to buy their homes at full discount. The level of home ownership in the new towns has risen from 22 per cent. in 1980 to nearly 40 per cent. today.
We accept of course, that not all new town tenants want, or are able, to buy their homes. Under part III, they will be able, if they wish, to transfer the tenancy of their present home to a new landlord. Under clause 65, corporations, acting in full consultation with their tenants, will be able to sell groups of houses to alternative landlords. These measures are intended to introduce greater diversity into the pattern of ownership of housing in the towns. In particular, we see scope to develop community-based housing associations and co-operatives in the towns, providing a range of general as well as special needs housing.
I state quite clearly that no new towns tenant will be compelled, in advance of the winding up of the corporations, to transfer against his or her will to another landlord. If a tenant chooses to remain with the corporation, he or she will retain full security of tenure and statutory rights.
12 midnight
Against that background, it would be wholly inappropriate to adhere unquestioningly to the assumption that all remaining corporation housing should automatically transfer to local authorities at wind-up. That is not to say—in answer to the hon. Member for Fife, Central—that we have ruled out any possible role for local authorities. We have given a strong undertaking to review all the options, and to consult the district councils fully on them. Thereafter, we shall bring forward fresh proposals for amendments to the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968. Obviously, that would be done not in the context of this Bill but much later.

Mr. McLeish: From the documentation that I have read it appears that district councils have been ruled out as a possible landlord for new town tenants. Is the Minister now saying that the issue will be further discussed with district councils—especially in the post wind-up period?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have not ruled out any possible role for local authorities, and there will be a full review and full consultations in due course.
Opposition Members seek in the new clauses and amendments to introduce prematurely a policy not of choice but of coercion. New clause 13 would require a development corporation to transfer to the local authority all the housing stock that it owns. What happens to those who do not wish to transfer to the local authority? It is not enough to say that they should have exercised their right to buy or right to transfer in advance of wind-up, because not every tenant will have been able to put his choice into practice in that way. The amendments are concerned

purely with satisfying the local authorities' hunger for a guaranteed inheritance, and we believe that tenants' wishes should be taken into account more fully.
I remind hon. Members that no new town will begin to be wound up until 1990 at the earliest. Before then there will be consultation about the wind-up arrangements, including those for housing transfer, and there will be an opportunity for further debate in the House. The amendments would pre-empt that review and debate and would force upon new town tenants a solution that the Government regard as unacceptable.

Mr. Ingram: The Minister mentioned the moratorium. Let me give him some figures on which to ponder. In 1979, a total of 2,018 new houses were completed by the new towns; in 1986, the number was 157 and in 1987—for the second quarter—it was only 15. That was at a time of growing homelessness, growing waiting lists and growing demand for new town public sector housing, as my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) pointed out. The Minister has said again that the new clauses and amendments are premature. I cannot accept that. There is genuine fear and worry among new town tenants about the Government's intentions. The Minister said that no one will be compelled to transfer his tenancy before wind-up, but he did not rule out compulsion after wind-up, and that is what is worrying new town tenants. That is why they asked the new town MPs to table new clauses to the Bill.
If the Minister is genuinely concerned about giving the tenants in new town areas real choice, he should give them the option of choosing the district council on wind-up, as set out in the new clause. A refusal by the Government to accept the new clauses will give 45,000 families a clear message. They will never accept platitudes; they want clear and precise answers. I think that they have got such answers tonight. If the Government want to send out a different message and do something to the benefit of the new towns, they should accept the new clauses.

Question put and negatived.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 1, line 19, after 'promoting', insert
'owner-occupation (especially by those seeking to purchase for the first time),'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 135, in page 1, line 19, leave out from 'promoting' to end of line 20.
Government amendments Nos. 25 and 26.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These amendments are in the nature of concessions. I undertook to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to ensure that there were adequate provisions to enable Scottish Homes to develop schemes to assist first-time buyers. That has been done. Amendment No. 24 puts it beyond all doubt that that has happened.
Is respect of amendment No. 135, I am happy to confirm that Scottish Homes will have a major role in the promotion of rented housing as well as in the various forms of owner-occupation.
In Committee, I made it clear to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) that I would respond to his representations to give Scottish Homes a specific role in respect of ensuring that proper training is available in research and development. Although the spirit of those


amendments was in line with the White Paper, their form was not appropriate. We have therefore brought forward these amendments which arise out of Committee points made by hon. Members. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Home Robertson: I welcome these minor Government amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF SCOTTISH HOMES

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 2, line 39, at end insert—
`(pp) promote, provide or assist in the provision of, training in matters relating to housing;'.

No. 26, in page 2, line 39, at end insert—
`(ppp) carry out, commission or assist in the provision of, research and development;'.

Clause 12

ASSURED TENANCIES

Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in page 8, line 45, at end insert—
'(3) A tenancy is not an assured tenancy if the interest of the landlord belongs to a registered housing association, so long as the tenancy is not one which, by virtue of subsection (4) below can be an assured tenancy.
(4) A housing association tenancy is an assured tenancy when:—

(i) the circumstances in which the tenancy shall apply, and
(ii) the terms of the tenancy

have been determined by the Secretary of State by order.'
This is an important amendment and I would like to spend a moment or two putting to the Government the fact that they have now had some time since the Committee stage, when we went through a series of amendments of which this was one. I chose amendment No. 127 to provide a vehicle to allow the Government to let us know the outcome of their deliberations. When discussing clause 12 in Committee, this amendment and the cause behind it were supported by hon. Members of all parties. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) expressed support for at least part of the principle of the amendment.
The clause to which the amendment relates caused concern among the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. It suggested a series of amendments that sought to give the Secretary of State the power to determine the terms and conditions of housing association assured tenancies. The matter was discussed in Committee.
I understand that to a certain extent the amendment has been overtaken by them. I understand that the Government have taken some decisions about what element of private funding taken into account in the joint financing structure can be held to be public or private. The definition of what is public or private has changed. Perhaps the Minister could say a word about that.
I am less concerned about the joint financing structure than I was in Committee. I am much more concerned with, and want to concentrate for a moment on, the change in the security of tenure that will flow from the Bill as it presently stands. This amendment is trying to press the

Government to make changes and give us an assurance that the security of tenants in the housing association sector will be secure after the implementation of the Bill.
At present, under part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, housing association tenants are secure tenants and enjoy the same rights as local authority, SSHA and new town development corporation tenants. However, future housing association tenants will be assured tenants under part II of the Bill. That represents a substantial reduction in the rights of future housing association tenants.
The Government's stated aim in making the change is to encourage private investment in the funding of housing association projects. I stress that there is no objection on my part, or on that of the housing association movement in Scotland, to private finance being brought into the picture, as long as that is not done at the expense of the security and succession rights of housing association tenants.
We have discussed the way in which secured tenants would become assured tenants. That, of course, would involve substantial reductions in security of tenure. I understand that a series of amendments tabled by the Government would effectively relocate two existing mandatory grounds for possession as discretionary grounds. That is welcome as far as it goes, but we still feel that the Government's proposals, if left unamended, will lead to a substantial reduction in tenants' security of tenure and succession rights.
The Government's stated objective of diversification of tenure is bound to be struck at unless they accept at least the spirit of our amendments. People will not be encouraged to move from the public sector into housing associations and co-operative housing if the reductions in rights are left in the Bill. There are real worries about that.
There is still considerable confusion about the increases in rents in general, and about the definition of affordable rents in particular. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the matter.
As the Minister knows, this will be an important issue for housing association tenants in the future. It will affect the way that the housing association movement is able to work in Scotland within the framework of the Bill. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about his consultations with the housing associations since the Standing Committee proceedings. I hope that he has had a chance to change his mind, and to respond positively to the points put forward in Committee and this evening.

Mr. Home Robertson: Let me briefly associate the official Opposition with what has been said by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on behalf of housing associations in Scotland. We recognise the serious anxieties of those housing associations and their members at the prospect of their being compelled to become high-rent, low-security landlords. We find it extraordinary that the present Secretary of State for Scotland, who keeps claiming credit for establishing security of tenure for Scottish housing association tenants in 1980, should now be introducing a new regime that could seriously undermine that security. Certainly the legislation could undermine the principles and motivation of the housing association movement in Scotland.
The Minister should recognise that the members and committees of housing associations are, in effect, their


neighbours' landlords. Hitherto, a fundamentally cooperative principle has worked behind the housing association movement, but the Bill could change all that. It could tear the heart out of the movement. I am not surprised that the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has made strong representations to all parties, and especially to the Government, appealing for amendments to the Bill to protect the status of housing associations and their tenants. I sincerely hope that the Minister will respond to those appeals.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is clearly an extremely important matter, and I made it clear in Committee that it would be given very thorough consideration. That consideration is continuing. The first step has taken place in the form of very full discussions with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, and these discussions have been extremely useful. We have been able to identify precisely what rights the SFHA wishes all future housing association tenants to have, and which existing rights it believes should not be continued.
The discussions have confirmed that there is a great deal of common ground between the housing association movement and the Government. One result has been that we have been able to bring forward some amendments, which we are to consider later. The amendments will retain the existing tenancy status for all housing association tenants who move from one house to another owned by the same housing association at any point in the future.
12.15 am
There are a range of options about the mechanics of securing the rights of new housing association tenants. We are still considering the options. The amendment proposes one set of mechanics, that central Government should determine a standard set of terms of tenancy for future housing association lettings. This would mean that housing associations would have no discretion at all to add to or take away from those terms. There are other options that involve variations both in the degree of statutory control and in the extent of the contract between housing associations and their future tenants, which either side should have discretion to seek to vary.
These questions of mechanics require careful thought. We expect to reach a final decision shortly, but for the present they remain under consideration. As I have said, we will reach that decision as quickly as possible.

Mr. Kirkwood: On the basis that the talks are real, will continue and will bear fruit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16

SECURITY OF TENURE

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 10, line 10, after 'any', insert '(i).'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 29 and 122.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This group of amendments fulfils a commitment that we made in Committee. We wished to make it clear that if there was a reasonable formula for rent increases written into an assured tenancy agreement, that formula should continue

to apply when a statutory assured tenancy arose on the termination of the contractual tenancy.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) was concerned that the amendment would let any agreements through the net which stipulated, for example, that rent increases would occur at the landlord's entire discretion. These amend-ments are the result of our reconsideration. They tighten up the kind of term relating to rent increases which will continue into a statutory assured tenancy. Only one which specifies a fixed sum or a percentage will qualify. I believe that the redrafted amendments achieve the desired purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 29. in page 10, line 12, at end insert
`; or
(ii) which makes provision for an increase in rent (including provision whereby the rent for a particular period will or may be greater than that for an earlier period) otherwise than by an amount specified in that contract or by a percentage there specified of an amount or rent payable under the tenancy'.——[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 17

FIXING OF TERMS OF STATUTORY ASSURED TENANCY

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 10, line 35, leave out 'one month' and insert 'three months'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 31.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Concern was expressed that one month allowed for an appeal was too short. We came to the conclusion that it would be reasonable to increase the period to three months.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 10, line 40, leave out 'month' and insert 'period of three months'. — [Lord

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 11, line 31, after 'above', insert
`if the tenancy has been brought to an end by order of the sheriff under this Part of this Act or.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 38.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This amendment simply provides that a rent assessment committee need not continue with a determination of rent for a statutory assured tenancy if that tenancy has been ended.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

ORDERS FOR POSSESSION

Amendment proposed: No. 32, in page II, line 47, leave out '1' and insert '11A'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 33 to 35.
Amendment No. 152, in clause 20, page 13, line 40, leave out 'any of the grounds in' and insert 'Ground 1 of.'.
Government amendments Nos. 36 and 78.
Amendment No. 10, in schedule 5, page 52, leave out lines 23 to 31.
Government amendments Nos. 79 and 81.
Amendment No. 12, in page 54, leave out lines 23 to 30.
Government amendments Nos. 82 to 86.
Amendment No. 133, in page 55, line 23, at end insert—

Ground 18
Suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant or will be available for him when the order for possession takes effect.

Ground 19

The following conditions are fulfilled—

(a) the tenant has given a notice to quit which has expired; and
(b) the tenant has remained in possession of the whole or any part of the house; and
(c) proceedings for the recovery of possession have been begun not more than six months after the expiry of the notice to quit; and
(d) the tenant is not entitled to possession of the house by virtue of a new tenancy.

Ground 20

Both at the date of the service of the notice under section 19 of this Act relating to the proceedings for possession and at the date of the hearing, at least 3 months rent lawfully due from the tenant is in arrears.

Ground 21
Whether or not any rent is in arrears on the date on which proceedings for possession are begun, the tenant has persistently delayed paying rent which has become lawfully due.'.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am not surprised that the Minister does not want to say too much about this. The debate on this group of amendments gives the House an opportunity to discuss the extension of the threat of eviction that is inherent in the Bill. Amendment No. 32, as I understand it, simply introduces some minor concessions on the part of the Government to extend the discretion of the sheriff whether to grant a possession order against a tenant under the new assured tenancy system.
The Bill started life with 11 mandatory grounds and a further six discretionary grounds for eviction. The Minister has freely acknowledged that the undermining of tenants' security is a deliberate feature in the Bill, the objective being to encourage private landlords. Apparently the desire to evict tenants is one of the prime motivating forces for private landlords, and it is obviously a motive that the Government are happy to encourage. They clearly want to give them a free rein.
We highlighted the worst aspects of schedule 5 in Committee and secured undertakings from the Government to reconsider the threat of mandatory eviction for assured tenants on several grounds, which were wide open to abuse by unscrupulous landlords. Accordingly, we tabled a number of amendments which are in this group which was moved by the Minister.
Amendment No. 9, which subsequently became Government amendment No. 78 when the Secretary of State for Scotland added his name to it, provided for mandatory eviction where a landlord has made suitable alternative accommodation available for the tenant. Amendment No. 10 provided for discretionary rather than mandatory eviction if the tenant was evicted because the landlord defaulted on a loan secured on the house in question.
Amendment No. II, which became Government amendment No. 81 when the Secretary of State for Scotland added his name to it, dealt with ground 7. Where the tenant had given notice, we felt that there should be certain circumstances in which that should be discretionary rather than mandatory.
Amendment No. 12 deals with grounds 10 and 11 concerning rent arrears. We felt that it would be deplorable that a minor lapse on the part of a tenant in paying his rent, which may have arisen as a result of delays in the payment of housing benefit, could lead to mandatory eviction by the sheriff because he would have no choice but to grant possession to the landlord.
All those mandatory grounds for possession should have been replaced by discretionary grounds for eviction if the sheriff thought that such action was justified. We believe that there should be the important exception of ground 10, because a tenant's security should not be subject to the whim of the landlord's creditors.
The Government amendments deal with some, but not all, of those points. In particular, Government amendment No. 79, relating to ground 3 of part I of schedule 5, is pitifully inadequate. Under that amendment, it will still be possible for a landlord's creditor to evict a tenant if the landlord defaults on a loan secured against the house. The amendment would mean that either notice was given in writing to the tenant not later than the start of a tenancy and that possession might be recovered on this ground, or the sheriff was satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirement of the notice.
In those circumstances, if that notice has been given, the sheriff will have absolutely no option but to evict the tenant. That is wide open to abuse. It will simply mean that some small print will be included in lease to make it very easy in certain circumstances for a tenant to be evicted. That is particularly open to abuse in connection with the landlord's right to acquire public sector property under part III of the Bill.
I want to give an example of what might happen. A landlord could acquire a property at a low valuation and the tenant would therefore lose his secure tenancy. The landlord might have financd that transaction with a loan from another speculator company secured against the property. Indeed, that might be done under the business expansion scheme, heralded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget. The other speculator company might be very closely associated with the institution or individual who is the private sector landlord. The landlord would simply have to default on the loan to allow the other institution—perhaps closely associated with the landlord —to spring the trap and secure mandatory eviction of the tenant and thus obtain vacant possession and a substantial increase in the value of the investment.
That is a serious possibility and the Government's amendments make no attempt to block such an abuse of the system. Small print in the lease will be no consolation for the tenants who have to face the risk. Indeed, I suspect that the small print could easily turn into a standard part of the drafting of leases under the new system of assured tenancies.
The Government's proposals for so-called assured tenancies give very little assurance to the tenants. They are specifically intended to undermine the security of the tenants in Scotland today and to increase the threat of eviction. This spectre of dispossession and homelessness will coincide with a dramatic reduction in the availability


of public sector rented housing, which might be available, to come to the aid of the homeless in Scotland. The Government's concessions fall considerably short of what Scottish tenants should be entitled to expect from the House.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Amendment No. 152, standing in my name, seeks to leave out
any of the grounds in
and insert 'Ground 1 of".
One of the great concerns about the Bill is its failure to address the growing problems of homelessness in Scotland. Amendment No. 152 seeks to ensure that there will be no evictions unless suitable accommodation is available, thus avoiding the problem of homelessness or adding to it. The amendment deletes the words
any of the grounds in part 1 of schedule 5 to the Act,
and inserts
Ground 1 of part 1 of schedule 5 to the Act.
Schedule 5 provides for the adjournment of proceedings, or sisting or suspension of a court order for possession or postponement of the date of possession. However, it does not apply such an adjournment where the grounds for seeking possession are any of those in part I of schedule 5. In other words, it ensures that alternative accommodation will be available.
Since district councils, under section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, have a duty to provide accommodation for persons with a priority need, the amendment seeks to ensure that only where alternative accommodation is assured will immediate possession be granted by the sheriff, thus removing an undue burden from district councils in providing priority need housing where any grounds stated in part I of schedule 5 would apply.
By concentrating on ground 1, the amendment really says that there must be no eviction if no council house or other accommodation is available, and that should be seen as part of my other amendment relating to the plight of the homeless. It insists that possession can be taken only when alternative accommodation, either public or private, is available. Eviction can only take place when those evicted can be housed.
The amendment seeks to guarantee some form of social conscience and responsibility on the part of landlords, since the onus would shift towards proving that alternative accommodation exists rather than creating homelessness and thereby causing another problem for local authorities which may not have suitable accommodation or resources.
The court order would not be made unless suitable accommodation was available. That should mean that accommodation was truly available, not just in theory. For example, the alternative housing should be adequate, suitable and affordable for the people involved. There is no sense in claiming that a family could move to other premises if the cost would be beyond their means or the premises were clearly inadequate for their needs.
The amendment seeks to stop people being thrown on to the street by unscrupulous landlords. It would give protection to the poorest and most vulnerable families and ensure fairness in allowing them the right to suitable housing without overburdening local authorities.
Homelessness is obviously a growing problem throughout Scotland. I understand that last year an estimated 26,000 Scottish families were made homeless. That does not include the single homeless and it masks the chronic overcrowded conditions endured by 1,250,000 people in Scotland. Waiting lists in the district and islands

councils of Scotland are growing and house building numbers are falling. All those are factors in the increasing problem of homelessness, especially when one adds changing demographic and social customs and the rising numbers of the young single homeless as a category.
All those factors will exacerbate homelessness. The amendment is an attempt to do something to meet that problem and assist local authorities in so doing. Surely the object of housing policy is simply to house people, not to make them homeless without a reasonable expectation of being rehoused.
The Government have turned down amendment after amendment, but I hope that they will look seriously at my attempts to help the homeless. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and ensure that the courts are used to protect vulnerable families, to house those most in need and not throw yet another impossible burden on to the shoulders of local authorities.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government amendments arise out of a commitment that I gave in Committee in response to representations. I promised to consider whether an element of discretion should be introduced to any of the mandatory grounds for possession in schedule 5. I said at that time that I thought the best case for such discretion related to grounds 1 and 11 — those that provide for repossession when suitable alternative accommodation is available or when the tenant is persistently in arrears with his rent.
My consideration has confirmed me in the view that those grounds should be discretionary, but it has also convinced me that ground 7—where a tenant issues a notice to quit but does not act on it — should also become discretionary. All the Government amendments relate to the transfer of those three grounds to the discretionary category.
Amendments Nos. 79 and 82 also arise from commitments that I entered into in Committee — that the notice to be served on a tenant under ground 3 must be served at or before the beginning of the tenancy, and that ground 10 should be amended to make it clear that it applies only when a full three months' rent is in arrears.
12.30 am
Perhaps I could also refer briefly to the Opposition amendments which would make one more ground discretionary—when three months' rent is in arrears. In this case, I remain convinced that there should be a mandatory right to repossession. If a tenant is three months in arrears, both when the landlord serves notice and when court proceedings start, he must be deliberately withholding rent, and the landlord should not be expected to carry such a loss indefinitely. If a tenant has no money, presumably he would be entitled to housing benefit.
Opposition amendment No. 10 would prevent ground 3 from being a ground for possession. So if a landlord defaulted on his mortgage payments, his creditor would he prevented from selling the house to obtain payment, whatever the circumstances. I appreciate that that is a matter of considerable concern, but it would he unreasonable. It would mean that there would be no lenders on the security of rented property, which is the reverse of what we want to see — greater private investment in such property which would help the homeless, directly or indirectly.
Amendment No. 152 is unacceptable, because it is at variance with the intention behind having mandatory


grounds for possession in part I of schedule 2 to the Bill. That intention is that, in the interests of fairness, there should be grounds on which the landlord must be certain of getting possession, and of getting possession within a reasonable time.
If a landlord has established to the court's satisfaction that he is entitled to possession on one of the mandatory grounds, it is unfair that he might be denied that repossession indefinitely, until the tenant has found somewhere else to live. That could mean, for example, that a tenant with an out-of-season holiday let might not actually have to leave until the holiday season was over. In my view, that would not be an appropriate outcome. There needs to be certainty of possession under the mandatory grounds, and the amendment would destroy that certainty. I therefore resist the Opposition amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 12, line 4, leave out 'or Ground 11'.

No. 34, in page 12, line 6, after 'than', insert
'Ground 11 A or Ground 11B or'. — [Lord James Douglas- Hamilton.]

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I beg to move amendment No. 150, in page 12, line 8, at end insert
`; and
(c) where a defender in an action would, in the event of an order for possession being put into effect, become a person with a priority need in terms of section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, notice of the proceedings has been served on the District Council within whose area the house is.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments : No. 151, in clause 18, page 12, line 14, at end insert—
'(8) Where notice has been given in terms of subsection (6)(c) above, the sheriff shall not make an order for possession unless he is satisfied that the district council on whom a duty is placed by section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 can provide suitable alternative accommodation.'.
No. 153, in clause 30, page 17, line 29, at end insert—
'and—
(d) that the defender in any action for possession would not become a person requiring accommodation to be provided as priority need accommodation in terms of section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.'.
No. 154, in page 17, line 40, at end insert—
`(4) Where a case of priority need in terms of section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 would arise in respect of any tenant against whom recovery of possession is sought in terms of this section, the sheriff may, on the making of an order for possession of a house—

(a) list or suspend execution of the order, or
(b) postpone the date of possession, for such period or periods as the Court thinks fit.'.

Mr. Welsh: The amendments deal generally with homelessness, but the clause lays down preliminary procedures regarding grounds for possession in circumstances where local authorities, as the authorities responsible for provision of accommodation for homeless persons in priority need, should have reasonably early notice of the possibility of a demand being placed on their services. The amendment should be read in conjunction with the additional amendment adding a further clause 8 which would ensure that local authorities had reasonable

notice and would be given the opportunity to be heard when they had an interest as authorities responsible for the provision of such housing.
The amendments are about notifying district councils of homeless persons or persons likely to become homeless. District councils have a statutory duty to house the homeless. Therefore, it would be absolutely stupid to allow court proceedings to put people on to the streets without letting the local district or islands council know about potential homelessness as an automatic part of any legal proceedings.
No delay should be caused by such statutory notification if the landlord does his or her job properly. The amendment should ensure a speedier system in helping to prevent homelessness. No tenant should ever be put onto the streets. The amendment would put the onus on the landlord to notify the district or islands council about possible homelessness. The sheriff will not be able to give an order in favour of the landlord unless such notification has been given.
It adds one more reasonable stage to the eviction process, positively to prevent unnecessary homelessness, prudently avoiding a very avoidable situation. If councils know the dates involved in the legal proceedings, they can provide for the smooth transfer to accommodation of otherwise homeless persons.
The amendment is designed to help people and to help councils create a smooth transition out of legal proceedings and conflict. It should prevent the risk of sudden or unexpected increases in homelessness from the private sector. It should help people and councils to plan ahead.
Amendment No. 151 has to be read in conjunction with subsection (6)(c) and lays on the sheriff a duty to consider the circumstances in which homelessness might arise. Section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 lays a duty on local authorities to provide accommodation in cases where there is a priority need. It is reasonable that the sheriff should be entitled to be informed whether the provision of such accommodation would lay an undue burden on a local authority. Ground I of schedule 5 provides a mandatory ground for a possession order : that suitable accommodation should be provided.
Amendment No. 153 provides for mandatory orders for repossession, which may lead to requests for priority need housing being made on the district council. Taken together with amendment No. 154, a duty would be imposed on the landlord to provide a certificate of alternative accommodation in such circumstances, or to assure the court that suitable alternative accommodation exists. That would avoid an unfair burden being placed on district councils as housing authorities which would require them to meet demands for rehousing, where short tenancies could be created as a means of priority entry to local authority housing lists.
The amendment would prevent eviction unless alternative accommmodation is proved to be available, and it would protect the handicapped, families and the elderly. It is a last-resort amendment if the other amendments that I have moved fail. It is the minimum possible that should be done to protect those who are most vulnerable.
When the Bill becomes law, it is crucial that the most vulnerable members of the community should be protected. To a buyer, housing will be cheap with a sitting tenant, because the district valuer's price will apply. Large


profits could be made if the sitting tenant were chucked out. Profit will be a very powerful motive for unscrupulous landlords to evict. The amendment is designed to protect tenants in such circumstances. It offers a measure of protection through the courts, because it would prevent exploitation.
Amendment No. 154 would bring the powers to be exercised by the sheriff into line with those given in clause 20 and would enable the sheriff to take into account other circumstances when cases of priority need arise. The amendment would allow time in which solutions could be found if there were no immediately available alternative accommodation. The courts would step in to protect citizens who otherwise would be vulnerable to unscrupulous, uncaring landlords.
Housing policy should be about housing people. The amendments would prevent homelessness and would place the onus on both central and local government to solve problems, not simply avoid them. I regret that the Minister said earlier that he is protecting the landlord by means of making people homeless, thus creating a major problem for the district and islands councils. The amendments would do what the Bill in general does not do. They would provide protection for the most vulnerable members of society and would prevent homelessness.

Mr. Home Robertson: We have already debated at length the evil of homelessness. and we have tried to impress on the Minister our belief that the Government have a duty to protect people in Scotland from homelessness. The amendments provide some protection for people who face homelessness. It would ensure proper consideration of their needs by central Government, local authorities and the sheriffs. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendments, but I am afraid that his track record is not very good.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I listened with great care to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Certainly, top priority should be given to reducing the number of homeless in Scotland, but the statutory obligation is on local authorities.
Amendment No. 150 would prevent a sheriff from making an order for possession if the defender would become a person with a priority need unless notice of proceedings had been served on the district council. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Persons threatened with homelessness are able to apply for assistance from their local authority. They do not have to wait until they are actually homeless before placing their case before the authority. In my view, defenders in actions for repossession will make their circumstances known to the local authority at an early point in the proceedings and there is therefore no need to make provision on the face of the Bill for authorities to receive formal notification of repossession actions.
I feel that amendment No. 151 is defective. It refers to the duty of the district council to provide suitable alternative accommodation. The duty, of course, is to secure that accommodation is made available. To some this may seem a small point of difference — the difference between providing and securing — but we should not forget that authorities are expected to fulfil an enabling role, rather than necessarily act as providers.
The amendment refers to section 29 of the 1987 Act. This section relates to the interim duty of an authority to

secure accommodation in cases of apparent priority need while it carries out inquiries to establish the applicant's position. The amendment seeks to prevent the sheriff from making an order for possession unless he is satisfied that the district council can provide suitable accommodation. As I have said, the duty placed on the authority by section 29 is to secure that accommodation is made available. Should it fail to discharge that duty the authority would run the risk of an action for default. This is also generally the case as regards its duties to persons found to be homeless through no fault of their own and in priority need. In short, the authority cannot avoid its obligations to homeless persons.
I do not believe that either amendment No. 150 or amendment No. 151 is necessary, and I ask that they be rejected.
Amendment Nos. 153 and 154 seek to cover similar cases in short assured tenancies, but are even less acceptable. The whole purpose of the short assured tenancy option is to allow landlords to let property for a limited period with the knowledge that they will be certain to get it back at a certain time. Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 would work entirely against that principle. Since, as I have explained, local authorities have a duty to arrange for the provision of accommodation for those who are homeless and in priority need, these two amendments are also unnecessary.
For those reasons, I hope that the House will not accept the amendments.

Mr Canavan: Can the Minister explain to us exactly what is meant by "sist"? What is the difference between sisting and suspending?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are a number of lawyers all round me who would be only too happy to correct me if I am wrong. To sist proceedings is to have a break in the proceedings. It means to bring them to an end for a period, at any rate. That is my understanding of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Harold Walker): I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not insist and persist; otherwise, the Minister will doubtless desist and resist.

Mr. Welsh: The hour is late and I shall not prolong the proceedings, but I deeply regret the Government's response to these amendments. They are reasonable amendments which meet a very acute problem that local authorities will face if and when the Bill becomes law. They are reasonable amendments designed to protect tenants and at the same time allow local authorities to perform their statutory duties. Local authorities will have to face the practical reality of persons made homeless thanks to this legislation and will be given no extra resources so to do. These amendments would allow at least extra warning and reasonable time for them to adjust and to perform their statutory duties.
I regret that the Minister has not been able to accept the amendment, and I wish to press it to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 194.

Division No. 240]
[12.43 am


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Barron, Kevin


Alton, David
Battle, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Beggs, Roy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)






Buchan, Norman
McAllion, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Macdonald, Calum A.


Canavan, Dennis
McFall, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McLeish, Henry


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Darling, Alistair
Maxton, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Michael, Alun


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dewar, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dixon, Don
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dobson, Frank
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Doran, Frank
Nellist, Dave


Douglas, Dick
Pike, Peter L.


Eastham, Ken
Primarolo, Dawn


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Robertson, George


Faulds, Andrew
Rogers, Allan


Fisher, Mark
Ruddock, Joan


Foster, Derek
Salmond, Alex


Foulkes, George
Skinner, Dennis


Galbraith, Sam
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spearing, Nigel


Gordon, Mildred
Steel, Rt Hon David


Graham, Thomas
Stott, Roger


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Haynes, Frank
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Home Robertson, John
Wall, Pat


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wallace, James


Illsley, Eric
Wai ley, Joan


Ingram, Adam
Wareing, Robert N.


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Wilson, Brian


Kennedy, Charles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Worthington, Tony


Lewis, Terry



Litherland, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Allason, Rupert
Chope, Christopher


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amos, Alan
Cope, John


Arbuthnot, James
Cormack, Patrick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Durant, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fallon, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bottomley, Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gow, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Browne, John (Winchester)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Burns, Simon
Grist, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butcher, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Chris
Hannam, John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Heddle, John





Hind, Kenneth
Page, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) 
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Holt, Richard
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Raffan, Keith


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Renton, Tim


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Janman, Tim
Roe, Mrs Marion


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ryder, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Hon Tom


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sims, Roger


Lang, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Latham, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Speller, Tony


Lee, John (Pendle)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Squire, Robin


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lord, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Sumberg, David


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Summerson, Hugo


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maclean, David
Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Major, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Mans, Keith
Trippier, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trotter, Neville


Mates, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mellor, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Miller, Hal
Walden, George


Mills, Iain
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Ward, John


Moate, Roger
Wheeler, John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Widdecombe, Ann


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Wilshire, David


Neale, Gerrard
Wolfson, Mark


Nelson, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Neubert, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Nicholls, Patrick



Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Mr. Alan Howarth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 19

NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS FOR POSSESSION

Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 12, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert 'two months'.
Subsection (4) provides for eviction with as little as two weeks' notice on certain grounds. The amendment would extend that to a minimum of two months, which would allow at least some scope for a family to find another


home. Two weeks is surely grossly unreasonable and inadequate, and I hope the Minister will give this issue some thought.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have given careful consideration to this matter following the debate in Committee, and we are not persuaded to change the clause. Here, as elsewhere in part II of the Bill, it is important to strike the right balance between the interests of those concerned. The landlord should be able to regain possession of his property without undue delay, provided he can establish his claim to possession, while the tenant expects to be give reasonable notice of proceedings.
These interests are not easily reconciled, and we take the view that the notice of proceedings should be longer in some cases than in others. That is why clause 19 specifies two minimum periods: two months for one set of grounds for possession and two weeks for the other set. The grounds, which will be subject to a minimum notice of two weeks, are grounds on which the landlord is, in our view, entitled to obtain quicker repossession. These grounds are, broadly speaking, where the tenant is at fault.
A two-week notice of proceedings for possession will seldom lead to eviction in two weeks. In the first place, there will usually be a delay between the expiry of the notice and the court hearing. Then, if the sheriff decides to grant possession on one of the discretionary grounds — which, with the amendments which the House has just accepted, will be all but three of the grounds to which the two-week limit applies — he can delay the date of possession as he sees fit. So the Government are not convinced that the change proposed should be made.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister has enunciated the rather alarming principle that always, if in doubt, back the landlord, even if that involves putting a tenant out of his house with only two weeks' notice.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 12, line 35, leave out '1 to 3, 6, 8, 9' and insert '2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11A'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 22

PAYMENT OF REMOVAL EXPENSES IN CERTAIN CASES

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 14, line 19, leave out '1 or Ground 8' and insert '8 or Ground 11A'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 24

INCREASES OF RENT UNDER ASSURED TENANCIES

Amendment made: No. 122, in page 15, line 15, at end insert—
'(5) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any term of a tenancy which makes provision for an increase in rent (including provision whereby the rent for a particular period will or may be greater than that for an earlier period) by an amount specified in the tenancy contract or by a percentage there specified of an amount of rent payable under the tenancy.'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 25

DETERMINATION OF RENT BY RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 16, line 2, after `house', insert
'if the tenancy has been brought to an end by order of the sheriff under this Part of this Act or'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 29

SHORT ASSURED TENANCIES

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 17, line 14. after 'landlord', insert
'or, where there are joint landlords, any of them'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 30

RECOVERY OF POSSESSION ON TERMINATION OF A SHORT ASSURED TENANCY

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 17, line 24, at end insert—
'(aa) that tacit relocation is not operating;'.
No. 41, in page 17, line 28., leave out 'two months'.
No. 42, in page 17, line 29, at end insert—
'( ) The period of notice to be given under subsection (1)(c) above shall be—

(i) if the terms of the tenancy provide, in relation to such notice, for a period of more than two months, that period;
(ii) in any other case, two months'.

No. 43, in page 17, line 31, leave out from 'relates' to end of line 36. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 31

REFERENCE OF EXCESSIVE RENTS TO RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 17, line 41 leave out from 'below' to 'may' in line 44 and insert—
'the tenant under a short assured tenancy'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 33

DAMAGES FOR UNLAWFUL EVICTION

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 19, line 48 leave out paragraph (c) — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]

Clause 35

FURTHER OFFENCE OF HARASSMENT

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 20, line 36 leave out 'a residential occupier' and insert 'any premises'.

No. 47, in page 21, leave out lines 5 to 12. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 37

CASES EXCLUDED FROM SECTIONS 23 AND 24 OF RENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1984

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 21 line 35 leave out `this Part ' and insert 'section 23 or 24'.

No. 49, in page 21, line 42, leave out from 'and' to end of line and insert
`at all times since then'.
No. 50, in page 21, line 43 leave out 'or a member of his family'.
No. 51, in page 22, line 15 leave out '(2)' and insert `(1)'. No. 52, in page 22 line 17 leave out 'this Part' and insert `section' 23 or 24'.
No. 53, in page 22, line 24 leave out 'this Part' and insert `section 23 or 24'.
No. 54, in page 22, line 28 leave out 'this Part' and insert `section' 23 or 24'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 39

NEW PROTECTED TENANCIES RESTRICTED TO SPECIAL CASES

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 23, line 38 leave out from first 'same' to 'or' in line 39 and insert 'landlord'. No. 56, in page 23, line 46 after 'available)', insert
`or on it appearing to the court, under section 48(2)(b) or (c) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, that other suitable accommodation was available'.
No. 57, in page 24, line 3 after 'satisfied', insert
`or as the case may be, the other suitable accommodation which appeared to the court to be available'.
No. 58, in page 24, line 5, at end insert
; or
(d) it is granted in compliance with a direction under section 51(2)(ii) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (power of sheriff to direct that tenant of wrongfully repossessed house be given suitable alternative accommodation) or in pursuance of section 282(3)(b) of that Act (grant of tenancy upon acquisition by public sector authority of defective dwelling)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 40

REMOVAL OF SPECIAL REGIMES FOR TENANCIES OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS ETC.

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 24, line 32, leave out from first 'same' to 'or' in line 33 and insert 'landlord'.

No. 137, in page 25, line 20, leave out from 'same' to `or' in line 21 and insert 'landlord'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 43

STATUTORY TENANTS: SUCCESSION

Amendment made: No. 60, in page 27, line 20, after `amendments in', insert 'Part I of.
No. 61, in page 27, line 30, at end add—
'(5) If and so long as a house is subject to an assured tenancy to which a person has become entitled by succession, section 18 of and Schedule 5 to this Act shall have effect subject to the modifications in Part II of Schedule 6 to this Act.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 46

INFORMATION AS TO DETERMINATION OF RENTS

Amendment made: No. 62, in page 28, line 17, leave out from '(1)' to end of line.

No. 63, in page 28, line 19, leave out 'the order' and insert
`an order made by the Secretary of State'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 53

RIGHT CONFERRED BY PART III

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 30, line 10, after `house', insert '(a)'.

No. 65, in page 30, line 11, after 'tenant', insert—
';and
(b) of which, on that date, the landlord is heritable proprietor'.
No. 66, in page 30, line 12, after 'property', insert—'of which, on that date, the landlord is heritable proprietor and'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

1 am

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in page 31, line 10, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-fifth'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 130, in page 31, line 13, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
No. 131, in page 31, line 13, leave out
`and the Secretary of State is satisfied that an unreasonable proportion'
and insert 'or one-tenth'.

Mr. Steel: I realise that at this hour of the morning the House will not wish to have a long debate on the problems of housing in rural areas. If the Government had followed their logic correctly, part III of the Bill would not have applied to the district councils covering the rural areas. The Government have said all along that part III is aimed principally at the large inner city and peripheral housing schemes. Nevertheless, in drafting the Bill, the Government accepted that some special provision should be made for the smaller local authorities in the rural areas.
When the Bill was first published it contained provision that if a rural housing authority lost one third of its housing stock through council house sales and/or tenancy transfers, the Secretary of State could place before Parliament an order forbidding any future sales or transfers in that district or islands area. Our criticism was that it was left to the Secretary of State to define a rural area and there was no certainty that he would act once the one third threshold had been reached.
I understand that in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), to whose industry in Committee I pay deserved tribute, moved amendments that sought to define a rural area more precisely or, alternatively, would have obliged the Secretary of State to lay an order as soon as the threshold was reached.
The Government rejected both amendments as being arbitrary and restrictive. The Committee accepted a Government amendment which, it was claimed, would allow an order to be placed sooner if "an unreasonable proportion" of the transferred houses ceased to become principal residences—for instance by becoming holiday


homes. In other words, these houses would be removed from the figure for the total original district council stock used to calculate the one third threshold.
The problem with that Government amendment is that on closer examination it becomes clear that, however conciliatory the Government were trying to be, the effect of the amendment was to tighten rather than loosen the conditions for the banning of further transfers or sales. That is because the use of the word "and" in line 13, clause 53(6) means that only when the one-third threshold has been reached and an unreasonable proportion of houses have changed usage will an order be possible. If, for example, one third of the authority's housing stock has changed hands but not very many houses have become, for instance, holiday homes, there would be no order. Therefore, a bad clause has been made worse.
The purpose of amendment No. 130, which I hope that the Minister will accept, is to replace the word "and" by the word "or" so creating an additional possibility for granting an order to prevent further transfers or sales. This would bring the clause in line with the Government's intention as stated in Committee.
On amendment No. 129, small local authorities are those that can least afford the loss of houses from their council stock, because there is often a paucity of provision in those areas. The one-third threshold is considered to he too high, even though it is a concession not granted to most local authorities. Amendment No. 129 seeks to replace the one-third requirement by a less damaging one-fifth limit. There is at least some prospect that that limit might be reached and some protection given to these authorities.
The Ettrick and Lauderdale district council has argued with me that by the time the one-third limit was reached, a council's housing capabilities would be too severely weakened for proper provision to continue. I hope that the Minister will accept that a one-fifth statement in the Bill would be much more realistic.
On amendment No. 131, the Secretary of State's powers under the Bill are extensive, and an example of that is his right to define what is meant by an unreasonable proportion of houses being resold and ceasing to be used as principal places of residence. Our amendment takes out that phrase and sets one tenth as the level at which the Secretary of State must lay an order to prevent further house transfers in rural areas. That also follows the argument that I used in support of amendment No. 130.
I hope that, taken together, these three amendments will appeal to the Minister as being reasonable to meet the strong objection of the housing authorities in rural areas and will be closer to meeting the Government's intentions than was their original drafting in Committee.

Mr. Home Robertson: We take the view that part III of the Bill is a totally unwarranted and unbalanced interference in housing legislation, which is simply designed by the Government to enable private landlords to acquire chunks of potentially lucrative and valuable property at a knockdown price from local authorities.
The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) is right to draw attention to the fact

that the measure could have a particularly disruptive effect on rural communities in Scotland, many of which have already seen the loss and depletion of a significant amount of their public sector rented housing stock, which makes it far too difficult for local people in those neighbourhoods to rent housing. They find that the housing stock has all been bought up or sold off to holidaymakers.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that this may not be the most appropriate time of night to be discussing the matter. We intend to return to the generality of part III when the debate resumes, but I certainly support the principle behind the point that he makes.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I listened with care to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), who put his case persuasively, and I hope that I shall be able to reassure him.
Two procedures must be followed before the Secretary of State can designate an area as a rural area and exempt houses from the tenants' choice provisions in part III. First, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is a necessary condition that one third of the total public sector housing stock in the area before the right to buy came into effect should have been sold, either under the right to buy or under tenants' choice or otherwise. Amendment No. 129 suggests that the figure should be reduced to one fifth. Secondly, the Secretary of State must consider whether, in his view, an unreasonable proportion of the houses sold have been resold and are being used as holiday homes.
I know that strong views have been expressed that it would be so difficult to satisfy both those criteria that, in practice, no designation orders will be made. Ettrick and Lauderdale district council was good enough to send the Scottish Development Department a copy of the notes that it made available to the right hon. Gentleman. The provisions in clause 53 and in the right-to-buy provisions in the 1987 Act are more flexible than the right hon. Gentleman or the district council concerned may realise. As I said in Committee on 25 February, the word "area" in line 44, page 30 of the Bill, is not defined. That is deliberate. The intention is that "area" can mean, for example, the full area of a particular district council, such as Ettrick and Lauderdale, or a parish, town or village.
The first criterion that must be met before a designation order can be made—that one third of the houses in the area have been sold — prevents much less difficulty, given that the area in which the threshold must be reached can be flexibly defined.
The provisions are reasonably and workable and I give the right hon. Gentleman my assurance that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I will consider carefully any applications received from local authorities for the areas to be designated under the provisions. Each application will be considered on its merits. With that assurance, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Televising of Proceedings

Mr. Speaker: I have selected amendments (a), (b), (d) and (e).

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That a Select Committee of not more than twenty-one Members be appointed to consider the implementation of the Resolution of the House of 9th February in favour of the holding of an experiment in the public broadcasting of its proceedings by television and to make recommendations.
That seven be the Quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time.
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.
That Mr. Graham Bright, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Don Dixon, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Sir Philip Goodhart, Mr. Alastair Goodlad, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. David Harris, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. David Hunt, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Anthony Nelson, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Joan Ruddock, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. John Wakeham and Mr. Brian Wilson be members of the Committee.
The House will know already from the almost weekly progress reports which I have been making at business questions since our debate on 9 February that this is not an easy subject. Since the House's decision that in principle it wished to carry out an experiment in the public broadcasting by television of our proceedings and to establish a Select Committee to make recommendations on the implementation of that experiment, there have been extensive discussions about the setting up and membership of that Committee. Although the proposals I have made have received a broad measure of support, it is clear from the amendments that they are not universally acceptable.
One point on which I hope the whole House agrees is the establishment of the Select Committee, following the resolution of the House of 9 February. The House decided then to hold an experiment in televising, and I am sure that no hon. Member would seek to use this debate as an opportunity to reopen that discussion. The time to consider again the experiment is when the Select Committee has reported. Tonight we are concerned just with setting up that Committee.
The first part of the motion in my name would establish a Select Committee of not more than 21 members, with the customary powers of Select Committees to send for persons, papers and records. In addition, the Select Committee would be able to travel, to make reports and to appoint specialist advisers. The second part of the motion nominates 20 members to serve on the Committee. I have put these names forward, having in mind the need not only to balance the parties, as on any Committee of the House, but to take account of the majority in favour of a televising experiment. I believe that all those nominated will do their best to carry out the will of the House, whatever views they may have expressed during the debate, and I am pleased that these nominations do not seem to be disputed by the House.
The original motion in my name, as hon. Members will have realised, provides for the possibility of one more place on the Committee than the number of those it

nominates. Under the conventions of the House for allocating Committee places between parties, this place should go to a member of a minor party. Indeed, a Committee of 21 was put forward with the intention of enabling two members from minor parties to serve. As I said in our debate on 9 February, in response to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), although I could not discuss the exact composition of the Select Committee, I envisaged that it would have as wide a representation as possible of all shades of opinion in all parties in the House, but I made it clear that I could not give the absolute undertaking for which she asked.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to Hansard, he will see that he said:
all parties in the House?"—[Official Report, 9 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 207.]
It is there in black and white.

Mr. Wakeham: I also said that there would be representatives of opinion and that I could give no undertaking. The proposition that the Committee should include eight representatives from the minor parties would pretty well need a Committee of the whole House to achieve it.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Why?

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I shall do my best to explain why I believe that this is the best way forward.
I had hoped that the two minor party members of the Select Committee would serve as representatives of all the minor parties since, despite their differences on policy, as I believe they recognise, they have some similar interests in this matter. I think that I speak for both the larger parties in the House when I say that we had hoped that the minor parties would be able to agree their representatives among themselves.
As the House knows, that was not the case. On the very day that the motion appeared on the Order Paper—10 March — there also appeared an amendment from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) nominating their colleague the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), and an amendment from the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and others adding to the Committee the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
The discussions at least produced agreement in one respect. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Member for Angus, East and their colleagues joined together to propose an amendment that would allow the Select Committee to have 22 members. That amendment appeared on the same day as the amendment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), which would reduce the size of the Committee to 20—the number nominated in the original motion.
The intention of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Member for Angus, East in seeking to increase the size of the Committee to 22 is, I understand, to provide places for three Members of minor parties to serve on the Committee. As I said during business questions last week, that is not what it would do. The conventions governing the allocation of places between parties would give that 22nd place to one of my right hon.


or hon. Friends. We would need a Committee of at least 35 for the conventional formula to produce a third place for minor parties.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) were appointed, the balance of the House in the context of how the vote was cast on 9 February would not be altered in any way? Why, therefore, must we observe the conventions of the House?

Mr. Wakeham: It is for the House to decide whether to abide by the conventions of the House. Those conventions are long-standing. I believe that the Committee should be set up on that basis, which would produce two members for the minor parties.
As I said, I do not believe that an amendment that produces a deviation from the formula and requires either the Government or the Opposition to give up a place on the Committee would be generally acceptable to the House. I shall therefore vote against the amendment. If the amendment is not approved by the House, it will not be possible for the House to approve as additional members of the Committee both the right hon. Member for Strangford and the hon. Member for Caernarfon. Hon. Members would have to choose between them. I am sure that either Member would be an unexceptional member of the Select Committee, and the House might well not wish to argue their personal merits or claims across the Floor. Certainly, I would not consider it appropriate for members of the Government to favour one above the other. In those circumstances, in my view, the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking offers the most useful way forward by reducing the maximum size of the Committee to 20 and we would obviate the need to distinguish between two Members, which many hon. Members might find distasteful.
In saying that, I should like to make it clear that I have consistently recognised that minor parties have a specific view as regards the televising of our proceedings and that we must ensure that there is an opportunity for that properly to be taken into account. I note also that there are particular considerations to be taken into account in the coverage of our proceedings in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But there is certainly more than one way of achieving that. It could be done by having a second representative on the Select Committee, but there is no reason to suppose that submitting formal evidence to the Select Committee would not also be an effective method. For my part, as Leader of the House, I undertake to ensure that parties not represented on the Committee are properly kept in touch with its work.
I know that there is considerable interest in the debate, Mr. Speaker, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. I am sorry that it has not proved possible to reach a generally acceptable arrangement for minor party representation on the Select Committee—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would the Leader of the House be so kind as to give the House his views on why both sides have got together to make a composition of this Committee of a quite appallingly flaccid collection of right hon. and hon. Members because they think that, if they do that, they will get this ridiculous and damaging imposition on the House of cameras operating and observing the House in action? Would the right hon.

Gentleman care to comment on the unsuitability of the composition; and what can be done to change it before it is too late?

Mr. Wakeham: I brought this upon myself because when the hon. Gentleman made an almost identical point at business questions a week or so ago I said that I wondered whether he would be here late at night to repeat it. He is here, and my answer is the same. I believe that those nominated by me represent an excellent cross-section of hon. Members, who will do a first-class job. I shall invite the House to approve my nominations in a minute.
I am genuinely sorry that it has not been possible to reach a generally acceptable arrangement for minor party representation on the Select Committee. I am especially sorry if the minor party place, which was intended to be helpful, should become a source of discord. As it is, it seems to me that our priority must be to set up the Committee with as little personal rancour as possible so that it can start its work. For that reason, in addition to the motion standing in my name, I shall support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking and I urge the House to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call Back-Bench Members, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we had a general debate on this matter. I will put the amendments at the end, when I will ask the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) to put his amendment first.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I beg to move amendment (a) to the motion, leave out 'twenty-one' arid insert 'twenty'.
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that proposition which I am sure will meet with the approval of the House. I do not want to make a long speech or to enter into personalities because the purpose of my amendment is simply to cut the Gordian knot and let us get on with it. It is undesirable that we should be detained late at night splitting hairs about which minor party has the greater say, or about the personalities who should serve on the Committee. What we really want to do is to get on with setting up the Committee so that it can get on with its work.
I understand that it is desirable that that should be started before Easter and I do not suppose that anyone, whichever point of view they take on the general question of the merits of televising, would dissent from the proposition that we should get on with it.
I very much hope that the minor parties will not feel that in some way they are being snubbed or downgraded. If their experience of this House, which they should value, is as great as I think it is, they will not be denied the opportunity to give evidence. I am fairly certain that they will all come to give evidence to the Committee and will not in the least be inhibited by the fact that they are not members of it. They may be encouraged by that, as may other hon. Members who may have valid views to put, without necessarily having the disadvantage of being members of a minor party because the Committee will no doubt be eager to take evidence from all Members of the House, even from the representatives of the professional actors in our midst.
It is a simple proposition. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has examined the mathematics and


the conventions that bind us. It is quite clear that it would be objectionable to establish a Committee of 22; it appears impossible to establish a Committee of 21; so let us establish a Committee of 20 and let them get on with it without hanging about any more.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I beg to move amendment (b), to leave out 'twenty-one' and insert `twenty-two'.
Tonight, unfortunately, we have an example of the House of Commons making a mockery of its claim to being the protector of minorities and of democracy. We are being invited to set up a Select Committee to consider televising the proceedings of the House.
The motion and the first amendment seek to ensure that only two of the four parts of the United Kingdom shall be represented on the Select Committee. Wales and Northern Ireland are to be deprived of places because they are minorities that can be disregarded. Despite its reputation, the House dislikes minorities. They are inconvenient and different, which is not surprising since Parliament continually legislates to make them different.
The affront to parliamentary democracy arises from another phenomenon. This may help the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who raised a point earlier. I refer to the cosy relationship between the two Front Benches. England has to be favoured because it provides the elected majority for the Government, and Scotland must be thrown a bone or two because it provides a solid block of Labour sets. For those reasons, the Front Benches do a deal, and consequently democracy bites the dust.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that on 9 February, only a few minutes after the House voted for the proceedings to be televised, my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) raised a point of order, pointing out that the broadcasting authorities in Northern Ireland had banned the sound broadcasting of our proceedings. He asked for Northern Ireland representation on the Select Committee.
I shall not be so unfair, Mr. Speaker, as to misinterpret your words: they are there in Hansard. You said:
I am sure that that request will have been heard by those responsible." —[Official Report, 9 February; Vol. 127, c. 288.]
I do not doubt that it was heard, but it has not been heeded. Nor, I fear, will many of our representations and submissions be heeded, any more than representations on many an issue from the Unionists, SNP and Welsh Nationalist Benches have been heeded in past months and years.
I wrote to the Leader of the House nominating my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford. My request, as we see, has been brushed aside. Not only have the two Front Benches declined to nominate him for a place, but, to make doubly sure, they are now removing the place.
This point must exercise all our minds, and I hope that someone will clear the matter up before the end of the debate. I feel that the Leader of the House has the ability and the capacity to so so. If the subject of the debate were a Bill of vital importance to the Government we would understand and accept the need for the Government to be assured of a majority on the Committee. This Committee,

however, results from a free vote on an issue that cannot possibly affect the standing or authority of Her Majesty's Government. Why, then, do the Government insist on adherence to convention and the ratio on Committees? The divide on the Committee will be between those who are for and those who are against television, not between those for and those against the Government. Even the for-and-against balance would not be upset by a membership of 22. As I understand it, the two hon. Members whose names appear in the later amendments would be on opposite sides of the question. They can confirm that.
On behalf of all three parties, I beg the Government to rid themselves of this obsession with dominating the House of Commons and its Committees. To Her Majesty's Opposition, I say that both they and the Government will lose nothing by displaying a little generosity and a little flexibility.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has spoken with conviction, and I think that the House will understand his reasons for wishing to press the claim for the representation of his party, and Northern Ireland, on the Committee. As a proponent of the principle of broadcasting, however—the only one to speak in the debate so far—I feel that it is important that I, at last, should state my wholehearted support for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I do not go along with the right hon. Gentleman's view that this should be essentially a Back-Bench and nonpartisan, or non-governmental, issue. I believe first that the Government have a legitimate interest in the considerations of the Select Committee and their eventual outcome, and secondly that the way in which such affairs are managed in the House involves the usual channels and a certain amount of organisation and understanding—which, I think, has brought us to the point at which we find ourselves tonight.
While the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) would undoubtedly make an objective and able contributor to the Select Committee's proceedings, he was an opponent of televising, as were the signatories to the amendment proposing him for membership. That would undoubtedly upset the proposed balance of nine to 11.
The House should reflect on the fact that the minority parties have been given an opportunity in the construction of the amendment to get their act together and bring forward a member in addition to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) to represent the minority parties. The answer was in their hands. I regret that there will not be a representative in addition to the hon. Member for Ross Cromarty and Skye, because there are special considerations in Northern Ireland and, I say to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), there are particular considerations in Wales. Those considerations are important and should be drawn to the attention of the Select Committee. However, it is a failure of the minority parties, rather than the failure of the House, in not getting their act together and enabling themselves to be put on the Select Committee since the opportunity was generously provided by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House by facilitating that provision in the terms of his motion.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I voted in favour of the motion and my right hon. Friend the Member for


Strangford (Mr. Taylor) voted against it. Therefore, it would be wrong to draw a red herring and say that my right hon. Friend would be speaking against televising, thereby upsetting the balance because the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) takes entirely the other position. We are saying that on the Select Committee there should be a representative from Wales and a representative from Northern Ireland, because, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said, there are particular issues affecting those areas.

Mr. Nelson: I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that whether they be proponents or opponents of the principle, all hon. Members whose names have been considered for inclusion on the Committee will do a workmanlike job within the remit that the House has set and will wish to present a report that will command the respect and authority of the House. However, the complexion of the Committee is important in terms of the respect it can command, not only within the House but outside. Regard has to be given to whether Members voted for or against the principle.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, if the two hon. Members who have been proposed were appointed to the Committee and it had 22 members, there would still not be an anti-Government majority. Since each of the two Members proposed holds a different view on televising the House, it would not change the overall attitude of the Committee.

Mr. Nelson: I understand the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not accept it for two reasons. First, the House has to decide what is a reasonable working size for a Select Committee.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is my view. I have to say that 21 members is a considerable size and, of course, 22 would be larger. Secondly, with respect to the right hon. Member for Strangford, I do not accept the argument that the balance will not be altered. The representation of 11 proponents and nine opponents on a Select Committee will almost exactly reflect the proportions voting when the motion was brought before the House. If the representation were to be increased significantly, the balance would be changed and the House should have regard to that.
For those reasons, I believe that the House would do well to take the advice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He has had an exceedingly difficult task in trying to strike the right balance and in seeking to take into account the views of all minority parties, the Opposition and opponents and proponents. Therefore, I hope that the House will support his motion.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: We are discussing tonight the setting up of the Committee that is to examine the intention to introduce the cameras to observe what goes on in House of Commons and to convey to the public outside an immediate impression of how we conduct our business. It is really disgraceful that this issue, which is going to involve a change in the procedures of the House and which will affect very gravely the conduct of hon. Members in the House, should be discussed at this time of night. We started this debate at four minutes past I in the morning. Instead of a full House to discuss this issue, we have the payroll vote. That is not much in evidence at the moment, but after midnight when the Government need

it, the payroll vote comes out like worms from the wainscotting, and undoubtedly they will be here when the vote is called.
Of course, we have on our side a collection of the inexperienced, the young Members, who really have not yet learned how the House conducts its business, and many of whom do not frequently utter in the House. They —eager beavers—have turned up tonight either out of their own keenness or because it is a good idea to keep in cahoots with the present leadership of the party because the present leadership of the party thinks that this would be a healthy introduction. These young Members, with their lack of experience, think they are all going to become national stars overnight. With most of their performances, there is not a hope in hell.
I have to say to my very distinguished leader, for whom I have great affection, that if he thinks he is going to become a star overnight he has an unhappy realisation coming to him, as does the Prime Minister, that that camera moving in closely on them is going to expose them in the cruellest fashion for the public to observe how they behave, both of them, in this small, confined Chamber of ours.
We have got to discuss this issue at this time of night because the expectation of the usual get-together of the two Front Benches is that at this time of night there will be less opposition, Members who would want to speak will not be here because they will be in bed—they have got more sense than to be here at this time of night—and of course because most of them who are going to be here are going to be those who will support the introduction of the cameras.
These timings of debates do not happen by accident. We have very subtle operators in the Government Whips Office. We have somewhat less subtle operators in the Opposition Whips Office. They are more easily—I must not use the word "conned", as it may be unparliamentary — they have a predisposition to have the wool pulled over their eyes, and we have suffered the effects of that since last June. There may be, of course, changes in the future. I am not putting myself forward for that sort of job, not with this crowd.
We have to discuss the composition of this Committee, and I think it is quite insulting that the Government and of course the Opposition Whips and the shadow Leader should decide that we discuss it at this time. But I think what is particularly insulting is that two very distinguished members of the minor parties are going to be excluded by the intention of the Government and with the connivance of the Opposition. May I say the inclusion of those two particular hon. Members would much improve the calibre of the suggested membership of this Committee. They have got more backbone than most of the rest of the collection put together.
I did describe very accurately the intended members of this Committee as a flaccid bunch. I do not retract either word, except I can think of a worse one than bunch. But we had, when we went through the farce of the vote about this matter, a 6:1 majority on our side of the House—in the PPL — for the introduction of the cameras. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear"]I hear one lone voice at this time of night. Excellent. We have this disproportion of votes, six to one, for the introduction because pressures had been brought to bear on the young and inexperienced.[Interruption.] We do not always get visitations in the Tea Room, as we did 24 hours and 48 hours before this matter


was discussed. But, fairly, the parliamentary Labour party decided that we would have the same proportion on the Committee. Therefore, we have the six Members for and I shall try to be charitable and not mention even their constituencies, let alone their names.
I do not wish to be insulting to one of my young colleagues. Before I make any comment I want to make it clear that whatever I say does not reflect in any way on my admirable young colleague. But, for the shadow Leader to decide, in a clever trick, that he would lessen the opposition, not by choosing my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who does know something about the procedures of the House and has some experience, to oppose this, or even my admirable hon. Friend the Member for Worthington, who is a procedural specialist—[HON. MEMBERS: "Workington."] He has been a pain in your neck, Mr. Speaker, for many years.

Mr. Brian Wilson: ; Is that "Worthington" as in, "Don't put your daughter on the stage, Mrs. Worthington"?

Mr. Faulds: I am sorry, I did not hear what my hon. Friend said because this loquacious windbag at my side, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), never stops talking, so I cannot reply. I am sorry, my hand slipped and my Order Paper has hit him on the head. Oh, sorry, I have done it again.
Instead of choosing even a tired old warhorse like the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) who does have some knowledge of the procedures of the House, who has been here for quite a long time and who knows the tricks of the media men, that hon. Gentleman must be kept off the Committee. Because any one of those three might have been effective in the arguments in Committee, not in opposing the introduction of the cameras but in seeing that proper restraints were laid; seeing that proper regard was given to the House controlling what was done with our proceedings.
What does the clever shadow Leader of the House do? He plays what I can only describe—I have sent him a copy of a letter that I have written to one of his hon. Friends— as a shabby little trick. He has not only cheated the Committee of a proper membership that could have made effective arguments about safeguards, but he has made life very difficult for a young colleague of ours who should not have been treated with such scant disregard. That young hon. Member will know what I mean in a few months' time when he has had to live through the proceedings of the Committee.
Now I shall finish my speech—[Interruption.] I have sat up a long time and I shall finish my speech, however much I may be interrupted by my hon. Friends who want to oppose my ideas.
We should have an effective membership in the composition of the Committee because what will be decided by the Committee will affect massively, much more than most of the unthinking Members on both sides of the House have considered, the conduct of Members.
We in the Labour party have a new procedure whereby one has to be reselected. My goodness, won't some of our young lads be eager to prove themselves in this Chamber. With reselection coming up, what better could an hon. Member do than mount a demonstration of his virility or

macho-ness as a Member? What will happen to those hon. Members who usually have slight regard for the disciplines of the Chair? Will they be well behaved, better behaved or worse behaved when the cameras come in? We all know the answer to that. The answer is that they will be much worse behaved. We have all been guilty of it, even those sitting near and dear to me.
We shall also find that the effect of the introduction of the cameras will inevitably alter the procedures of the House.

Mr. Wilson: Good.

Mr. Faulds: "Good", some young fellow shouts. The traditions of the House and the experience of the many hundreds of Members over many, many years have produced the procedures of the House. Some young whippersnapper says, "Good", when there is a comment about changing the procedures of the House. The procedures of the House are going to be changed to the damage of the conduct of its business. If most of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House have not considered that, they should start doing so pretty quickly.
Finally, I have to make a comment about you, Mr. Speaker. Your life and your work in the House will be made insufferable. You will be inundated with exercises of display, Standing Order No. 20 applications, and demonstrations such as we had from an ill-judged young Scot the other day. The life of the Speaker in the Chamber and his problems with discipline will be enormously magnified.
When we introduce this —no doubt the Government and our Front Bench will carry this business—when it is introduced, let me give a little advice to the House. The intention of the Committee is probably that we shall have a short-lived experiment. Please, please, do not have a short-lived experiment.
Television cameras are in the House of Lords, recording and reporting what the Peers do and say. The media boys have conducted that experiment with considerable control and responsibility. Once the cameras come in here on a six-month experiment, we will have the same soft-glove responsible treatment. We shall then vote for the introduction of this ghastly innovation. What will happen? The media men will then be off. We shall have let them off the leash. They will do what they want with what goes on in this Chamber. It will not be just the responsible ITN people. It will not be just the responsible BBC people. Satellite, cable and God knows what will have a right to report what goes on in this place. How will they report it?
I urge my colleagues that if the cameras come in here for an experimental period, make it at least a year. Make it preferably a year and a half or two years because in that time those irresponsible people up there who want this place for entertainment and not for information to the public will have managed to forget the restraints that they think will help them to get the experiment carried. We will then see how they will treat this place. Give them their head, let us have a one-and-a-half year experiment. I will take any money with any of my right hon. and hon. Friends that after that long period every single hon. Member in the House will want to get the damn things out again.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Not having the theatrical training of the hon. Member for Warley, East


(Mr. Faulds), I shall not try to emulate him, but I shall make two comments on his speech. First, in arguing against the advance of television into this place, he could apply those arguments equally to the use of the written word, and I disagree fundamentally with him. Secondly, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the very strong compliments that he paid to the hon. Members whom we should like to see taking their places on the Select Committee on the televising of the House.
In the light of the remarks of the Leader of the House, I make it clear that no SNP Member opposes the experiment of televising the House. Indeed, we are the only group in the House to record a 100 per cent. vote for the televising of the House. One of the reasons why we were willing to participate in that debate and to advance the cause of televising the House was recorded in the words of the Leader of the House on 9 February in column 207 of Hansard when he gave a very strong indication that the rights of minorities in the House would be observed.
It was interesting that the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said that the exclusion of minority parties from the Committee would not deny us our democratic rights. I suggest that there is clearly a distinct difference between participating in the discussions of the Committee and presenting evidence. If the right hon. Member for Woking thinks about it, he will recognise that clear distinction. Why should minority parties be denied the fundamental right to participate in this Committee which is to consider what is to happen in this place not just at the end of the 20th century but in the 21st century?
The comments of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) defy logic. He said that the minority parties should get their act together and that they must not upset the balance of the Committee, but the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and I have already pointed out that the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the right hon. Member for Strangford would in no way upset the balance of the Committee. The hon. Member for Chichester said that the House must decide the size of the Committee—the 20, 21 or 22 issue. The House must take account of the views of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman said that 11 proponents and nine opponents is more acceptable than 12 proponents and 10 opponents, but I do not agree. Perhaps it is my Scottish education, but I cannot understand the difference between 11 and nine and 12 and 10.
The televising of the House is a new concept, and we should therefore adopt a new approach. The convention is that there should be a Government majority on Committees, but this is not a Government Committee. It is a Committee of the House of Commons. It is a question of democracy because the decision was taken after a free vote in this place.

Mr. Onslow: If the hon. Lady is saying that the Government party is not entitled to be represented in accordance with its numerical strength, why does she assert so loudly her claim, as a member of a minority party and on behalf of the other minority parties, to greater preeminence?

Mrs. Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I said that there was a free vote in the House of Commons. Individual Members decided how to vote

according to their conscience, not according to their party Whip. Therefore the Committee should reflect the views of individual Members.

Mr. Allan Rogers: If the hon. Lady follows the logic of her argument, does she not accept that if the vote was on an individual basis there are 630 hon. Members who cannot serve on the Committee? How can she possibly argue for representation according to party when she says that the matter was decided on a free vote? If a Welsh Member were to sit on the Committee, it would probably be a member of the Labour party rather than a member of a minority party.

Mrs. Ewing: I intend to pursue that argument. If the hon. Gentleman had wished a Labour Member of Parliament with a Welsh constituency to serve on the Committee, he should have pursued it through the usual channels, which the minority parties cannot usually use.
I believe that the rights of minority parties are fundamental. Any democracy is judged by how it treats minorities. We may dislike minorities and we may disagree with them. On many occasions I have disagreed with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), but I respect his right and that of his party to express their point of view.
There should be 22 seats on the Committee. That would allow three minority representatives to serve on it. We ignore the rights and the aspirations of minorities at our peril. History shows us what happens when the rights of minorities are ignored.
It is said that it is a convention of the House that all its rules and regulations should be observed. It has been argued that it is a convention of the House to nominate a Committee. In this case the agreement was that there should be a Committee of 21 members. Yet the Committee of Selection refused to nominate 21. That, I understand, defies the normal convention of the House. It indicates to me that the Committee of Selection was not prepared to bite the bullet. It was not prepared to decide as between the minorities within the House of Commons who should be nominated to the Committee. It seems wrong to use the argument of convention to defend the Government and then attack us because we are looking for a place on that Committee to support our rights.

Mr. Wakeham: To be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and the Committee of Selection, the nominations came from me, not from that Committee, which did not consider these names at all.

Mrs. Ewing: In that case, I make it clear that the Leader of the House was not prepared to bite the bullet and decide which Member should serve on the Committee.
It may surprise hon. Members to learn that one of the suggestions that was passed on to my hon. Friends and the hon. Members on the Bench behind me was that we should toss a coin to decide which Member should be on the Committee. That is a travesty of democracy and justice, and denies the rights of all hon. Members.
I urge all hon. Members to remember the rights of minorities and of individuals, if they are genuinely concerned to make the Committee work so that we can reach the right conclusions on how the experiment should be conducted. There is no way in which the appointment of the right hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon could adversely affect the balance of the Committee.
I urge hon. Members most sincerely to search their consciences. Do they believe in the rights of minorities or do they not? Democracy is based on the rights of minorities and individuals and that is what our joint amendment is about. I ask the House to support the suggestion that there be a Committee of 22 to take account of all views in the House.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has just said. She accused my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of failing to bite the bullet, but in reality it is the minor parties who have failed to bite the bullet. They were given the opportunity, along with the hon. Members from the Ulster Unionist party, to have a representative on the Committee. Between them they could have reached a decision as to who should represent their interests. They had a responsibility to the people who elected them to ensure that they were represented on the Committee. They have failed; they have not even tried to reach a decision.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Ulster Unionist Members did reach a conclusion—that we both have an equal right to serve on the Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman not believe in equality?

Mr. Hughes: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Lady gives away her point in response to what I said. A decision had to be made. There is such a thing as the mathematics of the composition of the House. We have rights, too. We have a substantial majority of Members. Therefore, we want to be represented. I refer not just to Members who, like me, voted in favour of televising, but those of my hon. Friends who voted against as well. They have rights, too, and they are entitled to representation.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The hon. Gentleman talks about rights. Is it right that these parties should have been totally excluded? There will be many Conservative members, there will be members from the Labour party, but there will be no members of Plaid Cymru or the SNP or the Ulster Unionists.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is not right that those parties should not be represented on the Committee, but it is entirely their own fault and they have only themselves to blame. They should be ashamed of themselves for wasting the time of the House at this hour and for holding up the establishment of this important Select Committee.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Is it entirely the fault of the two minority parties involved in this debate that Wales and Northern Ireland are excluded from the Committee?

Mr. Hughes: All they had to do was to nominate someone to serve. That hon. Member would have been on the Committee already, we would not be having this debate and the establishment of the Select Committee would not have been held up for so long.
I have one more point to make. Members of Opposition parties have said on several occasions that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave a commitment that all parties would be represented. Hansard shows that he

did not make that commitment. What he said has been misrepresented by hon. Members. I shall quote what was said:

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Would the Leader of the House expect such a Select Committee to have adequate representation from all parties?

Mr. Wakeham: …I envisage that it would have as wide a representation of all shades of opinion in all parties in the House, but I cannot give the absolute undertaking for which the hon. Lady asks." —[Official Report, 9 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 207.]
No one reading that could believe that my right hon. Friend was saying that all parties would be represented.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are eight minority parties in the House of Commons? Does he believe that one in eight is adequate representation for those minorities' views?

Mr. Hughes: The minority parties have tried the patience of the House on this matter. They must understand that it is their fault if they are underrepresented. They have failed their electorate and the House.

Mr. Brian Wilson: First, I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) on his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who is on the Committee on the basis of interest and merit and who certainly does not deserve to be showered with sour grapes by the old thespian himself before the Committee has even been established.

Mr. Faulds: My hon. Friend must really not take on an old timer with such rubbish. I checked: my young colleague, for whom I have great respect, was asked, and did not volunteer, to sit on the Committee.

Mr. Eric Illsley: As the hon. Member in question, may I make it clear that I was not asked to serve on the said Committee?

Mr. Faulds: In that case, I withdraw my observation. That was my misunderstanding.

Mr. Wilson: I am pleased to have been able to perform a conciliatory act.
Some time ago, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) began the racial myth that has run through the entire debate. He said that bones were thrown to Scots Labour Members because of their predominance on the Opposition Benches. That is patently untrue. A proportionate representation on the Committee would put three or four Labour Scots Members on it— but there is only one, and that is me. I am on it not because I am a Scot, but because I take an intelligent interest in broadcasting and journalism.

Mr. Faulds: An inexperienced interest.

Mr. Wilson: The real nonsense of the selective use of the words "protecting minorities" comes from the Ulster Unionists, who suddenly appear as one splendid, united force to put forward their nominee. As I understand it, at any other time in the House, they do not even sit all on one side of the House. There are popular Unionists and unpopular Unionists; democratic Unionists and undemocratic Unionists—[Interruption.]


For the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley to stand up as the standard bearer of Unionism and say that his purpose in life is to defend minorities is stretching credibility.

Mr. Molyneaux: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. I hope that his knowledge of Ulster Unionism is not a reflection of his understanding of television and broadcasting, because then he will not serve very well on the Select Committee.
The Ulster Unionists sit on this side of the House and we are united. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on Saturday, he would have realised that my right hon. Friend has defended the rights of minorities not only tonight but on other occasions.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman merely demonstrates the point. If he is speaking only for the Unionists who usually sit on the Opposition Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "Always."]—he then does not speak for the Unionists who usually sit on the Government side of the House. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who leads the Democratic Unionists, does so.
I am very interested in this sudden outbreak of unity. I assume that in the European Parliament they would all sit with Monsieur Le Pen, if they were all that united, because that is where the nominee put forward tonight usually sits.
There are eight minority parties in the House. There is not a member of the Social Democratic and Labour party in the Chamber tonight. The idea that there is a voice for Northern Ireland that would speak in the Select Committee for Northern Ireland strikes me as preposterous. Equally, I believe that the outbreak of unity—

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Wilson: No, I will not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, the hon. Lady has had her chance. I am trying to debate.
Equally, the unity of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party on this issue rings less than true. I am sure that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) does not need reminding that if she and the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) had not defied the wishes of Plaid Cymru in 1979, they might be a big party instead of a small party—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe that there is a strong case for the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) to take his place on the Select Committee because I believe that there is a case for linguistic minorities, apart from anything else, being represented on the Select Committee. But he and other hon. Members on that side do no good for the argument by lumping themselves together as a united party of convenience in order to try to divide the Committee along racial lines rather than along the lines of genuine interest within the debate and along the sides of the House.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) not accept that his jibe about racism was really very unworthy of him, and that in Northern Ireland and Wales, which he has accepted in terms of a linguistic problem, very different issues come into play with regard to television and broadcasting? It is not a racist matter at all. It is a different issue.

Mr. Wilson: I very strongly deny that I said anything about racism.

Mrs. Ewing: You did! This is ridiculous.

Mr. Wilson: What I said, as I am sure Hansard will show, is "along racial lines" or lines of national identity. That is not what the Select Committee is about.

Mr. Wallace: It does involve it.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) says that that issue is involved. But the precise point is that, because 12 hon. Members come from Northern Ireland, the idea that on an issue like this they speak with one voice—[HON. MEMBERS: "There are 17."]—or that 17 hon. Members from Northern Ireland speak with one voice for Northern Ireland on an issue like this is nonsense. I do not think that the House should fall for that tonight.
This Committee should be formed in the way suggested, and while it would be better if there were two minority party places, if they cannot agree among themselves, let there be one minority party place. There will be plenty of other Committees on which all eight minority parties will be able to fight for the right to have a place.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I welcome the fact that we are having this debate, albeit at such a late hour. I welcome the proposal to establish the Committee and I welcome its membership as suggested by the Leader of the House. I recognise that there are eight minority parties in the House and that not all of them can be represented on the Committee. It will be necessary, therefore, to establish the sort of machinery—and make sure it works—about which the Leader of the House spoke so that the interests of the various countries and regions are properly represented, bearing in mind the different ways in which their broadcasting authorities are organised and work. I pledge that we shall do our level best, whatever the outcome of the voting tonight, to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are properly dealt with.
It is equally important that the full range of opinion in the Hoise is reflected on the Committee, for that spread of opinion varies from those who do not want televising at any price to some who would have it at almost any price, with the whole spectrum of views between the two, and I hope that the Committee will represent them all. If those on this side who are not directly represented wish to make representations through Committee Members, they will be welcome to do so, and I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will make provision for that to happen on the Government Benches.
For all those reasons, I welcome the proposal and hope that we will get on quickly so that the cameras can be introduced in October.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Hon. Members in all parts of the House want the Select Committee to report rapidly. To that end, it is to be hoped that its members will not find it necessary to travel here, there and everywhere. For example, there should be no need for them to visit New Zealand to view television there. My fear is that if they went that far they could obtain a world class ticket that would enable them to stop off anywhere en route.
I hope that the Committee will not find it necessary to watch television in Italy, like the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee, or to visit Boston, Philadelphia and other American cities to view television, as the Employment Select Committee Members have done, spending several hundred thousand pounds in the process.
I urge all the members of the Committee to recognise that the issue concerns this House and no other. They should tackle the matter with urgency and resist the temptation — to which virtually every other Select Committee, apart from the Statutory Instruments Committee, has given way—to join the travel club.

Mr. Dobson: I think that it will be unnecessary for this Committee to go abroad. It will have the advantage, over all other Select Committees, of having videos of the televising of other chambers, and they can be seen in this building.
Before my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) comes over too virtuous, I urge him to recall a recent meeting of the House of Commons Commission at which we agreed to vote considerable funds to permit him to entertain foreign visitors, under the aegis of the Statutory Instruments Select Committee.

Question put, That amendment (a) be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 35.

Division No. 241]
[2.15 am


AYES


Amess, David
Foulkes, George


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Ashby, David
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Galbraith, Sam


Baldry, Tony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Goodlad, Alastair


Barron, Kevin
Gow, Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Graham, Thomas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grist, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hanley, Jeremy


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Haynes, Frank


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hayward, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butcher, John
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Home Robertson, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Ingram, Adam


Dixon, Don
Jackson, Robert


Dobson, Frank
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Doran, Frank
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Eastham, Ken
Lang, Ian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Terry


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Foster, Derek
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)





Lord, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Rogers, Allan


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Ruddock, Joan


McAllion, John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McAvoy, Thomas
Ryder, Richard


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Sackville, Hon Tom


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Maclean, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


McLeish, Henry
Scott, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Madden, Max
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Soley, Clive


Maples, John
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Maxton, John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Michael, Alun
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Trippier, David


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Ward, John


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert N.


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Widdecombe, Ann


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Wilson, Brian


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wolfson, Mark


Portillo, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Prescott, John



Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Renton, Tim
Sir Anthony Grant and


Riddick, Graham
Mr. Anthony Nelson.


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)



NOES


Beggs, Roy
Nellist, Dave


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Primarolo, Dawn


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Salmond, Alex


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Sims, Roger


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Cryer, Bob
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Faulds, Andrew
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Tracey, Richard


Gale, Roger
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Janman, Tim
Wall, Pat


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Wallace, James


Jones, leuan (Ynys M00F4;n)
Wigley, Dafydd


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kennedy, Charles



Livsey, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


McCusker, Harold
Mr. William Ross and


Maginnis, Ken
Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Select Committee of not more than twenty Members be appointed to consider the implementation of the Resolution of the House of 9th February in favour of the holding of an experiment in the public broadcasting of its proceedings by television and to make recommendations.
That seven be the Quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time.
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.
That Mr. Graham Bright, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Don Dixon, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Sir Philip Goodhart, Mr. Alastair Goodlad, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr.


Bruce Grocott, Mr. David Harris, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. David Hunt, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Anthony Nelson, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. John Wakeham and Mr. Brian Wilson be members of the Committee.

PETITION

Health and Safety Executive (Dundee Office)

Mr. John McAllion: I have a petition from the citizens of Dundee and elsewhere in Scotland. It has been organised through the tremendous efforts of one of my constituents, Miss Margaret Malcolm, who has gathered more than 3,000 signatures to date, with more to follow. The petition opposes the closure of the Dundee office of the Health and Safety Executive and calls upon the House to use its influence to persuade the HSE to stop that closure and to retain the office to maintain health and safety standards at work in Dundee and elsewhere in the east of Scotland. I commend the petition to the House.

To lie upon the Table.

Tin Mining (Cornwall)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I welcome this opportunity to discuss a matter of great importance to all of us who live in Cornwall, but especially to the families who rely on the employment that the tin mines provide in Cornwall. As a relatively recently elected Member, this is my first opportunity to raise the issue of tin mining in Cornwall, and I regret that it should be in such circumstances.
As I look back at past debates, I am impressed by the all-party effort to save what is recognised as a community lifestyle and a tradition in Cornwall that must not be lost. I regret the absence of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd), who, I understand, is unwell and unable to attend. Although he may not agree with everything that I shall say, I am sure that he would join me in regretting the loss of 200 jobs and in seeking assurances for the future of a valued Cornish asset.
Some may question how far the Government are responsible, and perhaps I can enlighten them a little. We are not here to discuss the efficiency of the work force or of the management. If we were, we would hear nothing but praise. Equally, the internal dynamics of the tin market are not the immediate problem. The expectations of 1986 have been largely fulfilled. I understand that the investment programme and productivity and cost-cutting are on target and, although the dollar price remains low, that is not out of line with the projections on which the 1986 package was put together. I hope that the Minister can confirm all that.

Mr. David Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the price of tin is much lower than most people forecast at the time of the crisis? The price is down to £3,755 a tonne, which is way below what many thought it might be at this stage. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the dilemma facing Rio Tinto Zinc and the tin industry in Cornwall?

Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall answer that point later. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the fact that something has gone astray. The cause, as I believe that the Minister can confirm, is essentially the exchange rate between the dollar and the pound for a commodity priced in dollars. The Prune Minister's commitment to a free market exchange rate has dramatically increased the company's losses. With the costs wholly in sterling, but with tin traded at dollar prices it is almost wholly that element of the calculations which has gone wrong. There is nothing that the work force or the management could have been asked to do.
The central problem is the Government's decision to allow the pound to appreciate significantly. The Minister will know that the world price of tin is set in dollars, so the effect of the Government's exchange rate policy has been to force RTZ to sell Cornish tin at artificially deflated sterling prices. Equally, the Minister will be aware of the disagreement within the Government about exchange rate strategy.
Even given all that, obvious questions arise. Did the Department of Trade and Industry project exchange rate values in 1986? If so, what were the projections on which


the package was based and—crucial to the future of the mine—on what projections is the new package based? Does the current rescue operation assume that exchange rates will stay at present levels, that they will rise or that they will fall? On what basis is there a prospect of exchange rates allowing continued viable tin mining? If the Minister answers nothing else, I hope that he will put that essential piece of the jigsaw into place.
Whatever the answers, one thing seems clear: RTZ's difficulties and the prospective loss of 200 jobs are due not to inefficient labour, restrictive practices or incompetent management but to exchange rate policy. Had the Government followed our advice and joined the European monetary system this might not have happened. I cannot say that definitely would not have happened, but the stability of the EMS and lower exchange rates would have been of considerable help to the mine. The reality is that the experiment in free market exchange rates policy has affected the viability of the mine. As I understand it from all sides involved in the agreement, that is the key difficulty that has arisen.
I regret that it is not possible, in the early hours of the morning, to get a response direct from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I always welcome the opportunity to hear from the Under-Secretary of State, as I did in my last Adjournment debate, but the agreement has been negotiated line by line by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and it would obviously help if he could respond to my comments. However, he is not here, so perhaps the Minister can help the miners in one particular respect, which concerns consultation.
The miners who are about to lose their jobs have a great deal to be angry and uncertain about, and I ask the Government, RTZ and the new management to make every effort now to make amends for the lack of consultation. The work force has not created insurmountable difficulties; it has not brought about a breakdown in negotiations. In fact, at a meeting tonight, the work force again held back from any action that might put the rescue in jeopardy. Cornwall is renowned for its good industrial relations, but there are limits even to the patience of our Cornish miners.
A wage freeze, followed by redundancies, followed by an 8 per cent. reduction in salaries for the remaining work force would in many other parts of the country be a surefire recipe for industrial chaos and discontent in subsequent months, yet the Cornish miners have reacted with restraint. Tonight I was telephoned by a miner who was obviously distressed by what he has been told he has to accept, on which he has not been consulted. He has been offered a redundancy package of £3,300. In 1986 he was offered £4,500 and other miners who have dedicated more years to mining are likely to lose £5,000 to £6,000 as a result of not accepting redundancy when they were fighting for the survival of the mine. If that is what is necessary, so be it, but at least the details could be spelt out, to explain to the work force why it is necessary.
The miners clearly worked hard to save their industry in 1986. They approached the European Community and agreed a freeze in their salaries. They were involved throughout with management, the DTI and their MPs. They feel let down and left out in the cold on this occasion.
In his announcement the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:

Over the past few weeks, I have had several discussions with RTZ and my officials have been holding detailed talks with RTZ and the management of Carnon Consolidated Ltd."—[Official Report, 22 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 63.]
There is no mention of discussion with the work force or the unions. They were not even told the scale of the problem that was being faced.
While one can understand some of the industrial logic, one must also recognise its impact and the difficulties that it will cause the workers their distress and the feeling that they have been let down, given their past record.
The work force and indeed, most of Cornwall were aware of rumours regarding their future employment, even before the management had talked to them, but even then it was not open to negotiation. There was no consultation at any point with them. The work force should now be reassured—and I hope that they can now be reassured —that there will be negotiations in the future and, more immediately, told just how much room for negotiation they have before the April deadline for agreement.
In particular, we have been told that this is a management and employee buy-out. I ask the Minister to give details in his reply of the 20 per cent. interest to be purchased on behalf of the employees. What rights will the employees have over those shares? Will that give them voting rights in the future running of the company?
I understand that the shares will be held in a trust. As I am sure the Minister knows, the Liberal party has long supported employee share ownership. I should like to be convinced—I am sure that the workers would like to be convinced — that that is what we will see at Carnon Consolidated, but we do not even know the details of the package.
What of those details? Where are they and can the Minister elaborate on them? Also what of the future and the 200 jobs that are likely to go? Is it the case that a total of 200 jobs must be lost, and if that is so, are there no alternative ways of making the cost savings that the job losses are meant to produce? If we are to accept job losses on something approaching that scale, what special efforts will the Government direct to helping those unemployed people? In London 200 job losses may not sound a lot, but in an area of rural deprivation, with opportunities that are few and—quite literally—far between, 200 job losses are a major blow. As the Minister well knows, for every job that goes directly in mining, one or perhaps two more are lost in associated areas, from corner shops to commercial suppliers of the miners.
This afternoon I asked the Minister of State, Department of Employment what special help was being directed to areas of rural unemployment, compared to the sums being poured into areas of urban deprivation as the Prime Minister frequently repeats. He answered:
my Department is playing its part with other interested Departments".
Later, the Secretary of State for Scotland came forward with yet more special proposals for urban areas. There is a stark contrast between the special proposals for the urban areas, and not much more than good words for the rural areas. The true answer, I fear, is that there is precious little directed specifically to rural areas of deprivation by comparison.
However, it is possible to remedy that, and a start could be made by reviewing the assisted area status boundaries. The Minister will recall that this is the point I raised in our previous debate. I do not propose to reopen the question for the whole of Truro and St. Austell, but I do make a


special plea for the area around the mines, and especially in relation to the United Downs industrial site which was on the verge of success with council backing when the grants were withdrawn. This seems an opportune moment for reassessing that.
It is the luck of the draw that that industrial estate is on the wrong side of the boundary. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to pursue the possibility of reviewing that anomaly, as the Minister of State said earlier that he will look into the matter with his colleagues. Proceeding with such a change would show that the Government are concerned not only for those who continue at the mine, but for the future of those who may lose their jobs. The cost to the Government would be tiny compared to the recent tax cuts or privatisation of Rover or, I greatly suspect, compared to the money that has already been put into the mine.
While the Minister considers his response, perhaps he will tell me whether the Government made any approach to Europe at any stage to establish whether any help might be available from the Community. Surely there may be European funds available both to help the mine and to help those who may lose their jobs. I hope that the Minister can confirm that he has pursued all possibilities and what the response has been.
Above all, I hope that the Minister can elaborate on the Government's long-term view of the future for tin production in this country. Specifically, do they stand by their view in 1986, that tin mining in this country is of strategic importance, and, of course, vital to jobs in my county? I hope that the Minister will reaffirm the Government's commitment to, and long-term interest in, the future of Cornish tin mining.
The Minister may be inclined to respond with a list of previous investments in tin mining, and to tell us that this is not a cut but a saving in jobs. Or he may be inclined to do what he did in the last Adjournment debate to which he responded, and reel off figures for national unemployment and so forth. That is not what we are looking for, or what the work force is looking for. We want specific answers, clarifying what are still many mysteries. The point was made repeatedly tonight at the meeting of the unions.
The fact remains that the joint Government-RTZ agreement for a five-year programme has been stopped short. The exchange rate policy has proved too great a burden. Many angry miners met tonight to ask, why, after their co-operation and acceptance with minimal negotiation, and their struggle to stick to an agreement for a full five-year programme — which they have done — the Government have apparently sold them short in that longterm commitment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): It is customary to congratulate an hon. Member who has secured an Adjournment debate, and who has had the good fortune to do so through winning a ballot. Tonight, I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) not only on his success in securing the debate, but on being able to follow up so quickly last week's announcement of the management buyout of RTZ's Cornish tin-mining operations.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, this has been an all-party issue from the outset. The representations made to

the Department of Trade and Industry—some two years ago, when the original question became a crisis, and subsequently—have been carried forward by members of all parties. Few individual industrial issues have been addressed with such intensity — in terms of time, commitment and concern, and in terms of hard cash—by the present ministerial team at the DTI, and indeed by their predecessors when the crisis came to a head. The hon. Gentleman referred to several of the matters that he identified in his application to you, Mr. Speaker, on 23 March for a debate under Standing Order No. 20, and in his early-day motion 879.
Before I turn to the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman about the new arrangements, I should like to recall briefly the arrangements made in 1986, which form a backdrop to the current position.
The collapse of the International Tin Council's buffer stock operations in October 1985 led to a rapid drop in the price of tin. Tin-mining companies around the world were faced with some very difficult decisions, and within the United Kingdom Cornish tin operations were curtailed. Several approaches were made to the Department or Trade and Industry for financial assistance to enable companies concerned to see their way through the period of difficulty before tin prices recovered. Attention was focused on capital projects that would reduce unit costs. After careful consideration of several proposals which companies put to the Department, it became clear that only the proposals by RTZ's subsidiary Carnon Consolidated Ltd. offered an acceptable prospect of long-term success.
That was the background against which the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, Mr. Channon, now Secretary of State for Transport announced on 8 August 1986 a package to assist Carnon with a capital programme aimed at the reduction of its production costs. That programme was estimated to cost £31 million over a period of five years.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to keep that figure in mind when he talks about the number of jobs that have been preserved, and the number of jobs that we hope will still be preserved. It is an immensely generous settlement, in recognition of the very special conditions of Cornwall and the tin mines, and also in recognition of the all-party support, not least for the strong social reasons put forward.
I think that I can say that Cornishmen have a good friend in the Government, and that our generosity, while not necessarily unprecedented — that would be too strong a word—was certainly considerable.

Mr. Harris: As one who took part in the consultations leading up to that offer, and as the person who arranged the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will my hon. Friend accept from me that without that help there would be no mining of tin in Cornwall today? That is an undoubted fact. Talk about the Government having sold the miners of Cornwall down the river does not stand up to examination.

Mr. Butcher: I agree with my hon. Friend. We start tonight's debate against a figure of 700 jobs. I am sure that the hon. Member for Truro and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) regret the potential loss of 200 jobs. However, we would not have had those 700 jobs to consider tonight had we not been so immensely


generous with the package of measures that was put together with considerable support from the predecessor of the hon. Member for Truro, from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, and from our colleagues representing Cornish seats.
The assistance was to be provided in the form of an interest-free loan of up to £15 million, together with Government guarantees of commercial loans of up to £10 million. The commercial loans and the Government loan were to be repaid from the profits to be generated by Carnon Consolidated Ltd. if the project proved successful.
When the scheme was announced, redundancy notices had been issued to the 760 employees who remained at the two mines out of 1,000 or so employed at the start of the tin crisis. The assistance was expected to secure the employment of at least 640 people. In fact employment has continued at a higher level—some 720 in recent weeks.
Both RTZ Corporation and the Department have been watching closely the development of the project and the course of the tin price. The hon. Member for Truro was right to focus on that as a major factor. The capital works envisaged in 1986 have progressed and, as a result, there has been progress towards achieving the necessary cost reductions incorporated in the 1986 project.
The critical factor for the long-term future of the operations has always been the balance between costs and the price at which the mines are able to sell their tin. Regrettably, the sterling tin price has not shown a sustained recovery from the low level of £3,420 per tonne, which it reached in 1986. Having recovered to £4,670 per tonne in December 1986, the price has since fallen back and is currently below £3,800. I have to say that currency changes are on the margin of the totality of that movement. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, that has put the business under considerable pressure.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose—

Mr. Butcher: I am hoping to reply to all the hon. Gentleman's points. I will give way to a brief intervention.

Mr. Taylor: The Minister has explained the fluctuations in the price, but can he elaborate on what the expectations of price were in dollar and sterling terms? Is it not the case that, compared with the projections on which the proposals in 1986 were accepted, the only sanction that is out of line in a major way is as a result of the exchange rate?

Mr. Butcher: I hope to come to that point and to look at the question of stocks and the effect that they have had on the price. I shall do my best to make my own informed hunch—I put it no stronger—on what the pundits are saying might be the expected movement of the price in the immediate future.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, tin ores are found in a number of countries around the world. Some of the deposits are exploited by alluvial methods, which tend to be relatively low cost. Others are found in hard rock and have to be worked by mining methods that are relatively high cost. The Cornish tin deposits are of that kind.
The currency factors flow from the fact that tin is widely traded in dollar terms. The sterling tin price has

fallen latterly in response to movements in the dollar-pound exchange rate. In the longer term a significant recovery in the tin price, both dollars and pounds, is widely expected. The timing remains uncertain.
It is against such a background of tin prices that RTZ has reassessed Carnon's prospects. Moreover, from RTZ's standpoint, Carnon is a small mining operation which has required considerable senior management attention, without showing the potential rewards to merit the continuation of this degree of attention. This led RTZ to the view that the best chance for the long-term survival of Carnon is to be found in the management buy-out proposal.
Both RTZ and Carnon saw clearly that there had to be changes in the scope of the capital programme put forward in 1986 and that steps should be taken to reduce the costs of the operation. This perception led to a period of intensive discussions between RTZ, the DTI and the Carnon management in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster took a direct part and committed a lot of hours, personal effort and attention. The outcome had been the arrangements announced last week for a management buy-out. I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that cost reductions, including wage reductions, are a necessary part of the project.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed his dismay at Carnon's announcement of the loss of some 200 of the 720 jobs at two mines. We all share his regret at those losses. I hope that he will give proper recognition to the fact that the alternative, had the mines remained in RTZ's ownership, was complete closure with the loss of all the jobs.
The hon. Gentleman also commented on the shareholding arrangements negotiated by the new owners with RTZ. Senior managers of the company, led by its present managing director, are to hold among them 80 per cent. of the shares of a company that is being formed to acquire the present group. The other 20 per cent. of the shares will be held on behalf of employees. At this stage the details remain to be worked out fully, but I understand that the present intention is that the shares will be held by a trust through which, in due course, the employees of the company will be able to share in its prosperity. Meanwhile, it is essential for the company to reduce its own costs of production. To that end the management team has announced that it is cutting its pay by 17·5 per cent., and consultations have begun with a view to a significant reduction in the pay of the continuing work force.
That brings me to the support that is being provided by the Government and RTZ to help the new company on its way. RTZ will contribute £10 million in the form of interest-free loan repayable out of future profits. For our part, we are leaving in place the £15 million loan agreed in 1986. In addition, the guarantees of commercial loans of up to £10 million, which were also part of our 1986 package, are being converted into interest-free loans. Both the Government loans and the RTZ loan are repayable out of the future profits of the business. Our money will be released to the company by reference to capital expenditure incurred. Under the 1986 project Carnon embarked on a capital programme costing £31 million over the five years to 1990. In the new situation there is some rephasing of work and some changes in the detailed content of the programme. Expenditure to 1990 is now


estimated at £24 million. The programme will continue after 1990 and the total is estimated to reach £27 million during 1992.
I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and the Cornish community that the changes to our 1986 package are subject to review by the Commission of the European Communities. The hon. Gentleman will understand that in our exchanges tonight we must be aware of this subsequent examination and so he aware of what we say.
I am sure the House will realise from what I have said that this is a high risk venture. The Government have decided, in recognition of the importance of tin mining and the associated employment, especially in Cornwall, that it is right to make their support available in a different way from that adopted in 1986. If tin prices do not come up to expectations, and I have given my informed hunch of current expectations, and if cost reductions are not secured, the long-term prospect for the new venture is bound to be difficult. I cannot see that there could be any scope for yet further Government assistance in that situation.
That is a rather cautionary note on which to end my reply to the hon. Gentleman, but the realities of the situation cannot be escaped. I am sure that the hon. Member and the House as a whole would wish—

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose—

Mr. Butcher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish. I have two minutes left.
The realities of the situation cannot be escaped, I am sure that hon. Members and the House as a whole would

want to join me in extending their good wishes to management and work force as they embark on this new stage in their company's history. The Government are convinced that Carnon can win through—that is why we have continued our support — but it will require considerable—and I emphasise "considerable"—efforts by all those concerned with the company. I feel sure that this effort will be forthcoming.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister of State, Department of Employment has said that, with his colleagues, he will look again at the area status. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs make the same commitment for the sake of those who now look likely to lose their jobs?

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from earlier exchanges that the Department of Trade and Industry does not have immediate plans to review the boundaries or the travel-to-work areas affected or covered by assisted area status. However, I shall ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry, who has responsibility for the map and regional policy, to look carefully at our earlier exchanges to see whether they contain anything that is consistent with the DTI's policy on regions and travel-to-work areas. If there is anything that we can refer back to the hon. Gentleman about, I am sure that my hon. Friend will write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Three o'clock.